Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN OFFICIAL, TURKEY (SURRENDER)

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the surrender of Mr. Vermehren, senior member of the German secret service in Turkey and his wife, the Countess Vermehren, was declined by the British authorities in Turkey early in 1943, with the result that they were at large for a further year before surrendering to the Americans.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): The hon. Member is misinformed. Erich Vermehren went to Turkey at the end of 1942 as an assistant of the Assistant German Military Attaché in Istanbul. While associated with the German Secret Service in Turkey, he was never its head. According to his own statement, Vermehren decided in April, 1943, to go over to the Allies, but he took no actual step in this direction until he could get his wife out of Germany. His wife did not reach Turkey until December, 1943, and it was only in January, 1944, that they both handed themselves over to the British authorities—through the medium of the American authorities.

Mr. Stokes: Am I not right in saying that this surrender was offered to Colonel Gibson, the chief of the British Secret Service, and to Major Cribb, the assistant military attaché, who subsequently committed suicide? If that is so, why did they not report it to the British Ambassador?

Mr. Eden: As I understand it, in April, 1943, Mr. Vermehren said he wished to go over to the Allies, but until he got his wife out of Germany nearly a year later he did not do so.

Mr. Stokes: Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that this surrender was offered to Colonel Gibson and Major Cribb, and that they took no notice of it?

Mr. Eden: I do not think that can be right. Mr. Vermehren intimated that he would like to do so but he did not do it until he got his wife out of Germany.

Mr. Stokes: I shall return to this matter again.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA

Arrested Polish Representatives

Major Lloyd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet received from the Russian Government information with regard to the 16 Polish democratic leaders who have been arrested by the Russians, about whose fate concern is felt by the Polish Government.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any further report to make on the 16 arrested Poles.

Mr. Eden: I have received no further information additional to what has been published.

Mr. Thomas: Is it the case that the only offence with which the Poles are charged is the possession of wireless sets?

Mr. Eden: I do not think it would be true to say that that is the only offence, though it is one of the offences. I asked M. Molotov when I saw him at San Francisco to let us have a full explanation and list of the names. I hope we shall receive them.

Mr. McGovern: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where these men are housed?

Mr. Eden: No, Sir. The hon. Member knows that we have no access of any kind.

Bornholm (Occupation)

Miss Ward: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the occupation of the Danish island Bornholm


by Russian troops has been undertaken by the Soviet Government as an agreed measure of Allied policy.

Mr. Eden: The Supreme Commander of the Allied Expeditionary Force informed the Soviet High Command on 8th May of his intention to send a detachment to Bornholm to accept the surrender of the Germans there and asked whether this conflicted with Soviet plans. The Soviet authorities replied that in view of the fact that the German troops at Bornholm came from areas within the sphere of operations of the Soviet Armed Forces and that the Commander of the German garrison had requested assistance with food the island was being occupied by Soviet Forces. Soviet Forces therefore landed on the island on 9th May. As my hon. Friend will have seen from the Press, the officer commanding the Soviet Forces in Bornholm has issued a statement to the effect that the island is occupied by Soviet Forces provisionally until questions on Germany relating to the war are solved, and that the Red Army do not intend to interfere in Danish administrative matters.

Miss Ward: Did the action of the Soviet Government in fact have the approval of the Supreme Allied Commander?

Mr. Eden: I think my answer makes it clear that it was not a question of getting approval from the Supreme Commander. There was no arrangement of that kind while the military operations were in progress. It was a question who could reach the island first.

Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the Swedish anxiety about the occupation of the island? Is there any reason now why the Danish Government should not take it over?

Mr. Eden: I do not know about Swedish anxiety. I do not know that their contribution to the Allied cause has been very great. So far as the Danes are concerned, I can say that the Danish Foreign Minister and the Ministerial Delegation have been to Bornholm and returned and I understand that the relations between the Russians and the local authorities are reported to be cordial.

Sentenced British Seaman (Release)

Major-General Sir Alfred Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs

whether he has now received a reply from the Soviet Government regarding the sentence of one year's imprisonment with hard labour imposed upon a Scottish sailor, John Connor, aged 22, for the offence of drunkenness and disorderly conduct; and whether he has yet been able to obtain any reduction of this sentence in view of the fact that this man had made four voyages in convoys to the U.S.S.R.

Mr. Eden: I have been informed by the Soviet Embassy that the Soviet Supreme Court has reviewed this case and has decided that the remainder of the sentence is to be suspended. I understand that Seaman Connor has been released.

ITALY (FORMER POSSESSIONS)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make any statement as to the future of the former Italian possessions in Africa, and of the islands in the Mediterranean occupied by Italy; and if he can give an assurance that Italy will not be allowed again to occupy any such possessions from which she could threaten or interfere with British communications through the Mediterranean and the Red Sea.

Mr. Eden: These are matters to be settled by agreement between the United Nations and I regret I can make no statement at present.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that Italy is not to be treated as a collaborator or a co-operator, but as a defeated enemy?

Mr. Eden: I do not think I can add to the many statements that have been made on the subject in the past. It has been made clear to the Italian Government that they have no right to the return of any of these Colonies. It is a matter for inter-Allied agreement.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Would not the policy advocated by the hon. and gallant Gentleman be cutting off our nose to spite our face?

AUSTRIA (PROVISIONAL GOVERNMENT)

Sir Geoffrey Mander: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the present position with


regard to the Austrian Provisional Government; and whether the British Government now intends to recognise this Government.

Mr. Eden: I have at present no further statement to make about the Provisional Austrian Government, except to say that it is not recognised by His Majesty's Government.

Sir G. Mander: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how far this Government exercises any kind of authority in Austria?

Mr. Eden: No, I cannot, because we are not there to see. Our attitude is that we cannot recognise the Government until such time as our part of the Allied Commission has a full opportunity to see for itself.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: When will our part of the Commission be in Vienna?

Mr. Eden: As the hon. Member knows, there have been a number of obstacles in the matter but I hope, now that they are being removed, that before very long we shall have our people there.

Mr. Ness Edwards: Has one of the Austrian democratic deputies who have been at Buchenwald had an opportunity of returning to Vienna?

Mr. Eden: I could not say without notice. Perhaps the hon. Member will put a Question down.

SYRIA AND LEBANON

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the assurances given to the people of Syria and the Lebanon as to their sovereign independence and right to control their own armed forces, he will state the policy of His Majesty's Government with regard to the recent arrival of fresh French troops in those countries.

Mr. Eden: I have nothing to add, for the moment, to the reply which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir E. Spears) yesterday.

Mr. Stokes: Is it not the first duty of a mandatory Government to clear out as soon as possible, and do His Majesty's Government consider that there is any-real reason from a mandatory point of view for the retention of French troops in either Syria or the Lebanon?

Mr. Eden: It is very difficult to debate these complicated matters at Question

Time. As I told the hon. Member yesterday, we have taken a certain initiative in an attempt to improve matters in that region and I should like to see the results of the initiative that we have taken. When I know, I will report to the House. In the meantime, I had rather not say any more.

TRIESTE (ADMINISTRATION)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether satisfactory arrangements have been reached with the Yugoslav Government on the administration of Trieste.

Mr. Eden: Discussions with the Yugoslav Government about Trieste are still proceeding, and I have no statement to make at the moment.

Mr. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend represent to Marshal Tito that he will not advance his aims by describing British troops as exercising Gestapo control in another uniform?

Mr. Eden: We all have the utmost confidence in the fair play and conduct of British Forces, wherever they are.

Mr. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman likewise agree that it will not advance any Allied cause to describe Marshal Tito's actions as bearing any similarity to Hitler's.

TANGIER (INTERNATIONAL ZONE)

Mr. Ivor Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether His Majesty's Government now propose to take steps to restore the international status of Tangier.

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. This question is under active consideration by His Majesty's Government with certain other Governments and as soon as I am in a position to make a further statement I will do so.

UNITED STATES SOLDIER (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that the assurance contained in a letter from his Department to the hon. Member for Maldon, date 13th February, that T/Sergeant G. H. Moore, U.S. Army, was to be returned for temporary duties to this country in order to be available for service of a petition in civil proceedings,


has not been fulfilled and that the solicitors concerned have now been notified on be half of T/Sergant Moore's commanding officer that it is not intended to return him to this country; and if he will urgently renew his representations to the U.S. authorities on this matter.

Mr. Eden: This matter has already been brought to the attention of my Department by the hon. Member and renewed representations have been made to the United States authorities.

Mr. Driberg: In making those representations, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there was an absolute assurance from his Department, and that at that time the high American military authorities were being extremely helpful, but that some obstruction appears to have occurred lower down in Sergeant Moore's own unit?

Mr. Eden: They have been helpful in a large number of these cases. What we did not know at the time was that the commanding officer was supposed to have refused to send the man back to the United Kingdom.

STATELESS PERSONS (NANSEN PASSPORTS)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is considering making an international pass available for all refugees; and whether he will consult with the Norwegian Government with regard to the use of the Nansen passport for this purpose.

Mr. Eden: I assume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to those refugees who are Stateless and consequently have no right to a national passport. I understand that the Intergovernmental Committee on Refugees has set up a commission of experts to study this question in all its aspects and there is, in consequence, no need for independent action by His Majesty's Government. Nansen passports are not the specific concern of the Norwegian Government.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman, as prince of pacificators, certain never to dilute our ideals in this respect?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the Nansen passport rendered great service to Stateless persons after the last war, and will His Majesty's Government support proposals for the same passport now?

Mr. Eden: I agree about the value of the Nansen passport. The matter is being considered by the Inter-governmental Committee, but whether they will want the same procedure or a slightly different one, I do not know.

Earl Winterton: Is it not the case that this is a matter that will require the assent of other Governments, and that that is why the Committee over which I preside is considering the matter?

SPAIN (GENERAL FRANCO)

Commander Locker-Lampson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any statement to make regarding the French Committee's request that Franco should be removed; and if he has consulted with our Allies on this subject.

Mr. Eden: I presume that my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to certain recommendations which, according to reports appearing in the Press, the Foreign Affairs Committee of the French National Consultative Assembly recently made to the French Provisional Government inviting the latter to make an approach to the Allied Governments in connection with Spanish affairs. No communication has been received from the French authorities on the subject, and consequently the reply to both parts of the Question is in the negative.

Mr. John Dugdale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the substitution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdare (Mr. George Hall) by the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) as Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will give great pleasure to General Franco in view of that gentleman's well-known—[Interruption.]

Mr. Eden: I really do not think that is a justified comment on this Question. I would only say that the responsibility for foreign affairs does not lie with any Under-secretary, however distinguished, but with the Foreign Secretary acting in conjunction with his colleagues in the Cabinet.

YUGOSLAVIA (CROATIAN CATHOLICS)

Captain McEwen: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action His Majesty's Government propose to take to alleviate the sufferings of the Catholic population of Croatia under Marshal Tito's regime, in view of the responsibility incurred by Great Britain through the assistance rendered by us to the National Liberation Movement.

Mr. Eden: My hon. and gallant friend will understand that I cannot accept the implication that the assistance rendered by us to the National Liberation Movement of Yugoslavia in the struggle against Germany makes His Majesty's Government responsible for the internal administration of the Yugoslav State. This must remain the responsibility of the Yugoslav Government.

Captain McEwen: Would it not be as well, in any case, to make it clear to Marshal Tito that it is not the policy of the Allied Powers, having got rid of one illiberal Power in Europe, to encourage the substitution of another?

Mr. Gallacher: Will the Government see that British soldiers are not used as mercenaries empowered to re-establish landlords in any country in the Balkans?

Mr. Eden: Our position is quite clear. So far as we have influence in any of these lands, it will be to do all we can to allow the people of a country to choose the government and administration they want.

WAR CRIMES (TRIAL PROCEDURE)

Sir Oliver Simmonds: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is now agreement between the Allies on the essential arrangements for the trial of the principal war criminals.

Mr. Eden: I would refer my hon. Friend to the very full statement which the Prime Minister made yesterday in reply to the Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe).

Sir O. Simmonds: Have we definitely accepted the American proposition that this should be a military tribunal, and can my right hon. Friend say what is to be the location of the court?

Mr. Eden: I am afraid that my hon. Friend has over-simplified a very com-

plicated matter. If he will read the answer which my right hon. Friend gave yesterday, he will find that there is more than one category to be dealt with. All I can say at the moment is that we have had most useful conversations with Judge Jackson in the last few days which have resulted in great progress being made.

Mr. McGovern: In view of the question that has been discussed in the Press today about the trial of "Lord Haw-Haw," can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is being done with Mr. John Amery, and why there is such a black-out with regard to him?

Mr. Eden: Neither of these are matters for the Foreign Secretary; they are matters, for the Home Office.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Passenger Air-routes

Sir Leonard Lyle: asked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent the termination of the war in Europe will free civilian passenger air routes for the use of members of the public.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Harold Macmillan): Owing to the continued heavy demands on aircraft for military and other national purposes, facilities for air travel are still severely restricted. The existing arrangements must therefore be continued, under which reservations for travel overseas can normally be made only for passengers who are sponsored by a Government Department. Civil air services operating within the United Kingdom are, however, available for the use of members of the public after the needs of priority passengers have been met.

Scotland-London Service

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, what air service is available between Scotland and London; and what are the fares.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Perkins): There are two air services available between Scotland and London:

(1) London-Liverpool-Renfrew.

The single fare is £9. The return fare is £14 10s.

(2) London-Belfast-Renfrew.

The single fare is £10 10s. The return fare is £17.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that a Scottish firm has issued a booklet advertising a single fare at £3 9s. and return fare at over £6? Is this the best that the Minister can do with his new policy, or is he prepared to allow Scotland to run its own air line?

Mr. Perkins: I am very interested to hear the sudden conversion of the Opposition, so soon after their Party conference, to the virtues of private enterprise. I have seen that pamphlet. It is very attractive, but it is not, in the view of my Department, very accurate. It was produced by a company that has never run an air line, that has no experience of running an air line, and has no aircraft with which to run an air line. I understand that it is the hope of this company to rebuild crashed foreign aircraft. That is opposed to the declared policy of the Government, which is that British air lines should use British aircraft.

Mr. Montague: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that large numbers of Members on that side of the House said, during the discussion upon the White Paper, that it was possible to get the cost of air travel down until it was comparable with the cost of railway travel, and that that was probably a strong argument against our policy on this side of the House?

Mr. Perkins: I am full of hope that we shall get the cost of air travel down in the future, but if the hon. Member is worried about this high figure, there is a simple explanation. At the moment we have only very few aircraft available, and the particular type, D.H.87, carries a crew of two and has five passengers. Consequently, overheads are out of all proportion to the pay-load. Unfortunately, we have no other aircraft available to run this service, but in 12 months I hope that we shall have the Viking, which takes 27 passengers. I am full of hope that we shall then have a reduction in cost.

Mr. George Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman will not be there then.

Lieut. Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: How does my hon. Friend justify the refusal of the Government to permit a Scottish air line to "muscle in" upon the air line monopoly that has been established for England? Why does he accept the B.O.A.C. statement of the cost of air travel as against the costs submitted by the company to which he has referred?

Mr. Woodburn: Is the Minister aware that my information is that the costs are comparable with the costs in America of running similar aircraft, and that public enterprise can be justified only if it is efficient? Is he further aware that this hybrid scheme which is proposed is neither public enterprise nor private enterprise and that if it is not to be more successful than is proposed the sooner he scraps it the better?

Mr. McNeil: If the Minister cannot reduce the fare, can he at any rate cut down the time-table of this company? The journey is laborious and very slow.

Private Flying

Sir Wavell Wakefield: asked, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation how soon facilities will become available to enable private flying again to start in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Perkins: Private flying, like many other activities, will be restricted for some time to come by limitations of petrol and suitable aircraft, and by limitations of man-power and of civil airfields. I regret that I cannot foreshadow how soon these limitations will disappear. I would add that civil flights may be made with a permit from the Ministry of Civil Aviation where special circumstances justify the flight.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORGE

Transfers to Army

Mr. Ness Edwards: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware that airmen over the age of 30 years are being transferred to the Army and, if in view of the cessation of the calling up of men over the age of 30 years, he will take steps to prevent this anomaly as between serving airmen and civilians.

Major Procter: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the resentment felt in the Forces and by the families of serving men because men who have put in long service in the R.A.F., in some cases up to five years, are still being transferred to the Army; and if he will stop long-service men from being so transferred.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will give the reasons why men are being transferred from the R.A.F. to the Army and the


number proposed to be transferred; whether such transfers are limited to certain age groups and also trades and, if so, which; what difference such transfers will make to the dates of release and the rates of pay of those transferred; the estimated time it is expected their Army training will take; and the extent to which the loss of these men to the R.A.F. will postpone the group-release of R.A.F. personnel beyond that announced as probable for the Army.

Mr. H. Macmillan: With permission, I will answer these Questions together. Transfers from the Royal Air Force to the Army have been temporarily suspended.

Major Markham: Has that information been made known to the Air Force in Europe?

Mr. Macmillan: I have made it known to-day, and will take steps to make it further known.

Sir Irving Albery: Will the position of men recently transferred over the age of 30 be affected by what my right hon. Friend has announced?

Mr. Macmillan: No, Sir; the process has been suspended.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Owing to the noise, I was not aware that my Question was being answered with No. 21. I would like to have it answered separately as it covers a good deal more ground.

Mr. Macmillan: The hon. Member's Question was answered with No. 21.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask for your guidance? It is obvious that the answer given to Question No. 21 in no way answered my Question No. 28, and, that being so, would it be in Order for me to put this Question down again in exactly the same form?

Mr. Speaker: If the Question has not been fully answered it may be put down again. That is the rule.

Mr. Silverman: If Questions are answered together without the permission of hon. Members who asked them, is not the hon. Member who put the second Question entitled to have the answer repeated?

Mr. Macmillan: I am very sorry indeed. I did not intend any discourtesy to the

hon. Gentleman, and if there are any points he would like answered I will try to deal with them.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Will the right hon. Gentleman read the answer again?

Mr. Macmillan: The answer was—and it seemed to me to be a sufficient answer—that transfers from the Royal Air Force to the Army have been temporarily suspended, and therefore it does not seem to me necessary to answer all these questions which would have arisen had the transfers still been going on.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Transfers have taken place, and I have asked a Question about that and whether the men continue to receive the same rates of pay, and various other points dealing with the past which are quite germane, and on which, in my judgment, an answer should be given to me.

Mr. Macmillan: The matters to which the hon. Gentleman has just referred are under review.

Sir Herbert Holdsworth: Could we have an answer to the latter part of the Question—that is the point—and will the right hon. Gentleman say what effect these transfers to the Army will have on the release of R.A.F. personnel? Could we have an answer to that question?

Mr. Macmillan: That is another question.

Mr. Ivor Thomas: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that airmen are being told that if they volunteer for six years' service with the Royal Air Force, after the war, they will not be transferred to the Army, and this is felt to be a form of blackmail?

Mr. Macmillan: After a cursory reading of the files I thought a lucid statement had already been made on this matter by my predecessor, but if I can add to his powerful and persuasive intelligence, and if my hon. Friend will put down his questions again, I will do my best to make the position clear.

Major Markham: Is it not a fact that the Minister said he was answering Questions 21 and 28 together? If that is so could we have an answer to the second, third, fourth and fifth parts of Question No. 28?

Mr. Glanville: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that hon. Members have been receiving letters from men over 30 years of age who have been in the Air Force since 1940, and who are now to be transferred to the Army?

Dr. Edith Summerskill: In view of the Minister's statement, will he undertake to review special cases of hardship which have been brought to the notice of his predecessor?

Mr. Macmillan: I have undertaken to review the whole question, and it is being reviewed. In order to alleviate any anxiety, I stated frankly that these transfers are not going on, and that the whole question was under review.

Mr. Muff: In the latter part of the Question the query is whether those men who have already been posted are going to be put at a disadvantage owing to this new state of affairs. That is the question to which we would like a clear answer.

Mr. Macmillan: That question will certainly be reviewed.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: On a point of Order, might I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker? This is a matter of supreme importance to many thousands in the Royal Air Force, and it seems to me we are entitled to a straight answer. If I may say so without disrespect, I know the Minister is new, but he has not answered three parts of the Question I put on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest to the hon. Member that he puts down this Question again.

Physical Exercise Courses

Colonel Viscount Suirdale: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will now give instructions to all Commands in the R.A.F. that no personnel who are in Release Groups 1 to 25 shall be sent on courses which involve violent physical exercise, unless they volunteer for them.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. Officers and airmen are only called upon to undertake courses involving violent physical exercise if they are of the requisite medical standard. In addition they are under medical supervision while attending the courses.

Viscount Suirdale: In what way can the war against Japan be assisted by making middle-aged gentlemen do violent exercises—

Mr. Speaker: The Noble Lord is asking a rather hypothetical question.

Aerodromes

Mr. Stokes: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether a decision has yet been taken on the aerodromes to be kept in use in peace time by the R.A.F.; and whether instructions have been given to cease work on the construction or extension of all aerodromes not so scheduled.

Mr. H. Macmillan: As regards the first part of the Question, I have nothing to add to the replies given to the hon. Member for Maldon on 28th February and 16th May last. As regards the second part of the Question, construction or extension is now limited to work needed for transport airfields or for certain other airfields which, in advance of a general decision, it is already clear will remain in use.

Mr. Stokes: Is there any collaboration between the right hon. Gentleman's Department and, for instance, the Admiralty; and is he aware that there are groups of aerodromes where enormous sums of public money have been wasted and which cannot be used in peace-time?

Mr. Macmillan: It is because not all aerodromes are required in peace-time that the work is now being limited to certain aerodromes.

Mr. Stokes: But is there any co-ordination between the Air Ministry and the Admiralty? For instance, in Cornwall there are aerodromes galore on which millions of public money have been spent, and which will be of no use in peace-time.

Mr. Macmillan: There has long been close co-operation between the First Lord and myself, and no doubt it will be continued.

Mr. Lewis: Is the Minister aware that the buildings on some of these aerodromes would be very useful for housing families, and will he see that some aerodromes at any rate will be used for that purpose?

Mr. Macmillan: I will consider that, but the first question to study is how many will be required for airfields.

Prisoners of War (Repatriation)

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Air how many members of the R.A.F. were known to be prisoners of war at the time of the German surrender; and how many have since been repatriated.

Mr. H. Macmillan: The answer to the first part of the Question is 7,116 and to the second part 7,220. The latter figure includes prisoners whose capture had not been reported at the time of the German surrender.

Mr. Lipson: Can the Minister hold out any hope that there are still men who were reported missing and who may yet be brought back?

Mr. Macmillan: One must hope, but of course, these figures indicate that the percentage of men recovered is very high.

Higher Age Groups (Far East Service)

Sir George Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he can give an assurance that members of the R.A.F. who have attained 40 years of age and have served in the B.L.A. or elsewhere overseas will be exempt from being drafted to the Far East.

Mr. H. Macmillan: No, Sir. I would refer my hon. and learned Friend to the replies given to the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. E. J. Williams) on 14th February last and to my hon. Friend the Member for Balham and Tooting (Mr. Doland) on 21st March.

Sir G. Jones: Will the Minister bear in mind that it is prejudicial to the health of men of 40 years of age if they are sent overseas?

Mr. Macmillan: My hon. Friend will realise that the question of overseas postings is complicated, and I thought it wiser, after one day in office, to confine myself to the very lucid explanations given by my predecessor.

Discharge Groups

Mr. Lipson: asked the Secretary of State for Air what groups it is anticipated will be discharged by the end of the year; how many and which trades in these groups will not be released; and if he will give the numbers of the men to be released and of those whose release is to be withheld.

Mr H. Macmillan: I regret that it is not at present possible to give the information for which the hon. Member asks.

Mr. Lipson: Would the Minister tell us when he hopes to be able to make a statement on this matter, because men serving in the Army have been given definite information and men serving in the R.A.F. feel they are entitled to similar information?

Mr. Macmillan: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and I think it would be wiser to make these statements very carefully so that there is no misunderstanding.

Mr. Bowles: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether there is any truth in the rumour circulating in the Royal Air Force that doctors, clerical orderlies and others attached to the medical staff are being retained beyond their ordinary release group?

Mr. Macmillan: I would like notice of that question.

Mr. Bellenger: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's recent return to this country, is he aware that a statement has been made by the Minister of Labour that demobilisation will start on 18th June, and there is a feeling in the Royal Air Force that large numbers of men will not be released in their proper turn as laid down in the White Paper? Can he therefore give some information to reassure these men at the earliest opportunity?

Mr. Macmillan: I would like to consider that question.

Mr. Driberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the threatened practice of withholding whole trade groups instead of dealing with men as individual cases will dislocate the whole basis of the age plus length of service system?

Mr. Macmillan: I have to consider, of course, as we all do, the working fairly and honourably of the scheme laid down and also the problems of the danger of dislocating the prior needs of the nation for the continuation of a difficult war against Japan.

PORT DUES AND RAILWAY RATES (INCREASES)

Sir Frank Sanderson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, whether he can state the


amount by which the P.L.A. has increased its port rates on goods since January, 1943; the increase in the dock and harbour dues at Liverpool and the Port of Hull since the outbreak of war; and the increased rate of charges of the four main line railway companies since the outbreak of war.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): Port rates on goods at the Port of London have, since January, 1943, been increased from 100 per cent. above pre-war to 200 per cent. above pre-war. In the case of other charges made by the port authority, the present increases range from 7½ per cent. to 100 per cent. above pre-war. At Liverpool, the increases above pre-war are, approximately, dock rates on goods 31½per cent., dock rates on vessels 39 per cent., harbour rates on vessels 87½ per cent. As at other railway-owned docks, rates and dues at Hull are 20 per cent. above pre-war, except those on certain coasting liners and their cargoes, which are 7½ per cent. above pre-war. Charges on the four main line railways are generally 16⅔ per cent. above pre-war, but season ticket rates and workmen's fares are only 10 per cent. above pre-war.

Sir F. Sanderson: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that railway companies will receive the same consideration as other public utility concerns?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The position is somewhat complex and it is hard, and probably unfair, to make a comparison between ports like the Port of London Authority and railways and docks, because entirely different considerations apply.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Double-deck Vehicles (Road Space)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport, what is the minimum width of road necessary over which double-deck vehicles can operate with safety and convenience.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friend to paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Memorandum issued by my Department on the layout and construction of roads, of which I am sending him a copy.

Public Service Vehicles (Tyres)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is satisfied as to the safety of, public service vehicles, seven feet six inches in width, owing to the tyres which are now being used on such vehicles having to be made of synthetic rubber and other substitute materials.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Yes, Sir.

Accidents, Pool Bank, Yorkshire

Mr. Muff: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he is aware of the increasing number of accidents on Pool Bank, Yorkshire, West Riding; and if he will direct that the remedies to avoid the accidents shall be put into immediate operation.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: Plans are being prepared by the county council for the improvement of the bend at Pool Bank.

RAILWAYMEN (WAR SERVICE)

Miss Ward: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport if he will arrange to inform the public of the services rendered to the war effort by the railwaymen as a whole, but with particular reference to the arduous and dangerous work of making up goods trains under difficult conditions.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: My hon. Friend will remember that an appreciation of the services rendered to the war effort by railwaymen, including those concerned in the making up of goods trains, under enemy attack was included in the book entitled "Transport Goes to War" produced for the Ministry of War Transport by the Ministry of Information in 1942. My Noble Friend will, however, take an early opportunity of revealing a good deal more of the work of railwaymen during the war, both under enemy attack and in the successful mounting of our own defensive and offensive preparations,

Miss Ward: While thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him to bear in mind that the general public have no conception of the work that has been done by the men who work on the railways?

Mr. Keeling: Will the review which is to be forthcoming also mention the services of railway managements and the sacrifices of railway shareholders?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I hope it will refer to the work done by all parties concerned.

Viscountess Astor: Have not the general public shown their appreciation, time after time, of the extraordinary sacrifices made by men of the railway companies, not only managers but the people on the railways?

PETROL (MOTOR COACHES)

Sir Herbert Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport when it is proposed to authorise an issue of petrol for motor coaches.

Mr. Kirby: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will, in view of the improved war situation, consider, permitting the use of motor coaches during the summer holiday season for short journeys of up to 50 miles so that repatriated prisoners of war and industrial war workers may enjoy portions of their leave in the countryside.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: I would refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Glenvil Hall) yesterday.

Mr. Kirby: While thanking the hon. Member, may I ask him, in view of the reply which he gave yesterday, whether he is aware that overtime in war factories is continuing on a very large scale and whether he will reconsider the matter, so that the people in war factories can get this stay in the country, when apportunity offers?

Mr. Thorneycroft: My Noble Friend is reconsidering this matter and, as I said yesterday, it is not only a question of petrol but of man-power as well.

MIDDLE EAST SUPPLY CENTRE

Mr. Astor: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether he will publish, at an early date, a White Paper describing the work of the Middle East Supply Centre and of the technical authorities connected with it.

Mr. P. Thorneycroft: My Noble Friend will gladly consider in what form further

information may best be given about the achievements of the Middle East Supply Centre.

Mr. Astor: In making this preparation, will my hon. Friend also cinsider maintaining the beneficient constructive activities of this centre and not allow them to lapse?

Mr. Thorneycroft: It may well be that the future of the Middle East Supply Centre will affect Departments dealing with a rather wider scope of policy than before.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

B.B.C. Monitoring Service

Sir Alfred Beit: asked the Minister of Information what steps are being taken to reduce the monitoring service of the B.B.C.

The Minister of Information (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): The present scale of the B.B.C. monitoring service is principally due to the demands of the Service and other Government Departments. We intend to make reductions and their scope is now being considered.

Sir A. Beit: Will not the abolition of German broadcasting mean that the German side of this service can be reduced forthwith?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that is largely so.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman, now that he is Minister of Information, to remove the prejudice of the B.B.C. staff against minority opinion in this country?

Mr. G. Strauss: Will the Minister consider the question of the "News Digest," and take no steps which will interfere with the monitoring necessary for the preparation of that invaluable document?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Hynd: Is it not a fact that the situation in Germany, and the need for re-educating Germany, is a reason for extending and not cutting down the German monitoring?

Mr. Lloyd: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. It is not the German services that are concerned, but the monitoring services.

Eritrea (Publication)

Mr. Hynd: asked the Minister of Information whether he is aware that, at the branch of his Ministry in Asmara, the "Eritrean Weekly" published, in the local language, Tigrinya, on 3rd August, 1944, an editorial "Plans for the Future of Eritrea," claiming that Britain, having assisted in the liberation of Ethiopia, must be compensated by the division of Eritrea into two parts, the lowland to be joined to the Sudan and the highland to be placed under British rule for 25 years, the Tigrai province of Ethiopia to be joined with this new State; whether this represents the policy of His Majesty's Government in this regard; and whether, in view of the assurances in the Atlantic Charter, he will take steps to terminate such propaganda in this area.

Mr. G. Lloyd: The article to which the hon. Member refers was not an editorial. It was a contribution which came, and was stated to come, from an Eritrean and was preceded by an editorial statement that the paper welcomed free expressions of opinion but did not necessarily agree with the views published in its columns.

Mr. Hynd: While that may be true, does the Minister realise that the impression given must inevitably be that this is in some way a representation of British Government policy?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir, because another article giving an exactly contrary view, was published a few weeks later.

German Concentration Camps (Films)

Mr. E. P. Smith: asked the Minister of Information whether, owing to the present difficulties, especially for the inhabitants of remote rural districts, of getting into the towns to attend cinema performances, he will cause exhibitions to be held in village halls of the Buchenwald and other films showing Nazi characteristics; and if he is aware that there is a strong desire in these areas that this should be done.

Mr. G. Lloyd: Yes, Sir. I will give instructions that the Ministry's mobile film projectors should be available for this purpose.

Mr. Silverman: Will the Minister see to it that any film which is shown in that way is shown without the objectionable interpolations which Mr. Speaker indicated the other day ought never to have been made?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

MINISTER OF HEALTH (DESIGNATION)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider changing the designation of the Minister of Health to Minister of Health and Local Government, in view of the fact that it is often not realised that this Minister is responsible for many aspects of local government in addition to health.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Churchill): Personally I never liked the change from "President of the Local Government Board" to "Minister of Health." But I think it would be a great mistake to make another change now.

WAR DECORATIONS AND MEDALS

Mr. Palmer: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now consider extending the award of the 1939–45 Star to those personnel of Anti-Aircraft Command who were operationally engaged for a suitable period in the defence of Britain.

The Prime Minister: No, Sir, the Defence Medal is to be granted in recognition of such service in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend not really willing to reconsider this matter? Is he not aware that there is considerable feeling amongst personnel of "Ack-Ack" Command that there should be a distinction between them and members of the civilian services?

The Prime Minister: The losses in the Fire Service were many times higher than those in Anti-Aircraft Command. I do not think this is a case for making particular trouble. I would have liked very much to have made some particular distinction for Anti-Aircraft Command but that, as I have said before, involves bringing in enormous other numbers. Whatever Anti-Aircraft Command gets the air ground staffs, running into 700,000, require, and before you know where you are the number has reached a million. We have tried to cater for all these millions by the Defence Medal. If we now pick out any special honour for Anti-Aircraft Command, that will open the whole question again. I only wish that we could meet the case, perhaps by more small badges and so forth, but I


am very much afraid of opening again the flood-gates, and having to begin again from where we started.

Mr. Molson: Will my right hon. Friend consider dividing the Defence Medal into Military and Civil Divisions as has been done in many cases, for example, the Order of the Bath? Will he note the objection of the Armed Forces to being given a civil medal?

The Prime Minister: In that case there would be great difficulties between the claims of Anti-Aircraft Command and those of the air forces on the stations, and of the troops employed in this country. A great many differences and difficulties would arise, and in some cases civil staffs were more severely hit.

WALES (SECRETARY OF STATE)

Colonel Sir Arthur Evans: asked the Prime Minister if His Majesty's Government will set up a Welsh Office to be administered by a Secretary of State.

The Prime Minister: I am not in a position to make any statement on this subject.

Sir A. Evans: In view of the approaching Election, does my right hon. Friend not agree that the people of Wales are entitled to have some indication of the views of His Majesty's Government on this very vital matter, before they have the opportunity of recording their votes?

The Prime Minister: I think that all these matters have to be considered in due course, but the choice of the moment at which to make any declaration must naturally rest with the responsible Ministry of the day.

Mr. A. Bevan: Will the Prime Minister, in making any statement about this particular matter, have regard to long-term considerations and not to short-term electoral considerations?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I certainly think so. I should not be prepared, for instance, to make a decided departure at this moment, in the hope that it would get more votes for this side of the House at the coming Election. I would like it to be freely discussed.

Professor Gruffydd: Can the Prime Minister say whether the Committee appointed by the Cabinet have sat at all?

The Prime Minister: I cannot carry in my mind all the different Cabinet Committees which are appointed from time to time, still less how many times they have sat.

Mr. Rhys Davies: If the right hon. Gentleman is lucky once again to be Prime Minister in a new Government, will he bear in mind that the real issue in connection with the claims for Welsh Home Rule, is the different constitutional treatment meted out as between Scotland and Wales in that in Scotland there are a State office and separate Ministers and there are not a similar office or Ministers for Wales?

Mr. Kirby: When the Prime Minister is considering these special offices for Wales and Scotland, will he also consider a special office for England?

Mr. Speaker: That is another question.

GENERAL ELECTION (POLLING DATE)

Mr. McNeil: asked the Prime Minister if, where 5th July is a public holiday as in such Scottish constituencies as at Greenock, he will take the necessary steps to permit polling taking place not later than 12th July, providing always that no party involved in the Election objects to the proposed change.

The Prime Minister: I am in favour of this sort of suggestion, and not only as regards Scotland, and propose to arrange for it to be discussed—in fact I think it it going to be discussed to-day—through the usual channels, as soon as the necessary information has been obtained as to what constituencies are affected.

Mr. McNeil: While we are all grateful for this most generous and reasonable attitude, will the Prime Minister do everything he can to speed a decision, because so many other arrangements depend upon it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I was, until a late hour last night, talking about it. Having regard to the altogether abnormal and undue length of this Election, there will be plenty of time to deal with this very point.

Sir Ronald Ross: Will the Prime Minister remember that 12th July is a much more important holiday?

The Prime Minister: No solution to which I shall be a party will involve an Election in Northern Ireland on 12th July.

Sir H. Williams: As the matter involves legislation in any case, will the Prime Minister consider the alternative which has been suggested on several occasions of a wide extension of absent voting on the basis of a person being an absent voter up to ten days before the poll? That would solve a vastly greater number of problems than voting on different days.

The Prime Minister: I should have thought, after some consideration of this matter, that that would plunge us all into hopeless chaos.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Oils and Fats (Imports)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Minister of Food, in view of the cut in the fats ration, how soon he expects to be able to import some quantity of olive oil from Italy, or soya, peanut or other oil from elsewhere.

The Minister of Food (Colonel Llewellin): I very much regret that there is no prospect of obtaining additional supplies of oils and fats during the next few months by importing supplies of the kind to which the hon. Member refers.

Fish

Captain Bullock: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the shortage of fish in the Liverpool and Merseyside area, he will take steps to see that there is an improvement in both supplies and quality.

Colonel Llewellin: I am having inquiries made, and will write to my hon. and gallant Friend as soon as possible.

Sir Oliver Simmonds: Is my right hon. and gallant Friend aware that the position is also very disappointing in the Midlands, and will he exercise some pressure over the personnel in the Admiralty to obtain more trawlers, as soon as they can possibly be spared from naval service?

Colonel Llewellin: The Admiralty are giving up more trawlers. They could not give up a great number before victory in Europe had been achieved, but now we are getting some more.

Sir Joseph Lamb: Is not the question of transport a more potent one than that of supplies?

Colonel Llewellin: It boils down largely to a question of man-power at every stage of distribution, from the time the fish comes into the harbour until it is served on the fishmongers' slabs. We are going into all these matters.

Captain Bullock: Are we using German prisoners to deal with this matter?

Colonel Llewellin: Not yet.

Captain Bullock: asked the Minister of Food for how long it is proposed to keep in operation the scheme for zoning fish.

Colonel Llewellin: So long as the transport and supply positions make it necessary, but no longer.

Catering Licences

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: asked the Minister of Food whether it is a condition of the granting of a catering licence that the applicant should have been in similar business before the war or whether the policy is to give preference to such individuals; and how many licences, particularly in the ice-cream business, have been granted to persons of Italian or German origin.

Colonel Llewellin: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "No, Sir." In general, a licence for a new catering business is not granted unless the business is required to meet the essential needs of consumers, but this condition is not applied in the case of an ex-trader released from the Forces or from work of national importance who wishes to reopen a former business which he closed as a result of the war. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I regret that the information is not available.

Lieut.-Colonel Marlowe: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman any idea of how many licences have been issued to Italians? What steps is he taking to ensure that a reasonable proportion of these licences are reserved for men who have been serving overseas, and to ascertain that they are issued to such men?

Colonel Llewellin: To get an accurate account I should have to circulate 1,200 food offices; but I know that no Italian


has got a licence unless there has been a consumer need, and normally only in cases where Italians have bought existing businesses and want to carry them on.

Fruit and Feeding Stuffs (Imports)

Sir A. Beit: asked the Minister of Food what steps he is taking, in view of the reduction of certain rationed foodstuffs, to resume or increase the import of West Indies bananas, Empire citrus and deciduous fruit, and feeding stuffs for poultry and livestock in the United Kingdom.

Colonel Llewellin: Arrangements have already been made to import the maximum quantities of Empire citrus fruit and feeding stuffs for which shipping space can be made available. We shall also import some apples, but I do not anticipate that freight can be spared this year for other deciduous fruit, whilst bananas require specially refrigerated vessels, as well as ventilated railway vehicles, neither of which can at present be spared for this traffic.

Sir A. Beit: Does not meat require specially refrigerated vessels, and will not the reduction in the meat ration release a certain number of these vessels? Cannot they be used for carrying bananas?

Colonel Llewellin: Banana vessels are very useful for bringing in bacon, as well as bananas. [Interruption.] Some of it is coming in, but not as much as I would have liked. The main vessels in which we shall probably have spare space are the other refrigerated vessels. I hope to bring considerably more oranges in those vessels.

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Can the Minister give any information about the millions of pounds of apples in Queensland, Australia, which have been in reserve for us for a long time, and have not yet reached us?

Colonel Llewellin: Australia is a long way away, and it is an extravagant place to bring apples from, from the point of view of shipping.

Mr. Walkden: But we used to be able to sell them here at 5d. a pound, which is less than the price of apples grown in this country to-day.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make about any alterations in the Business for to-day?

Mr. Eden: We desire to obtain to-day the Report and Third Reading of the Requisitioned Land Bill, and the two formal Motions to bring the Local Government (Boundary Commission) Bill and the Liabilities (War-Time Adjustment) (Scotland) Bill back to the Floor of the House. If there is time, and if it is agreeable to the House, we would like also to take the Report and Third Reading of the Forestry Bill and the Second Reading of the Camps Bill. [Lords].

Mr. Attlee: I take it that it is not the desire of the Government that the House should sit very late? We have no objection to these Bills.

Mr. Eden: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I have been encouraged by the fact that the Committees have been making such progress to think that we might get through this Business.

Mr. A. Bevan: Will the right hon. Gentleman be in a position to let the House know to-morrow when he proposes to ask the indulgence of the House in regard to Supply days?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I can give information about it. I do not propose to move the Motion to-morrow, because I want to see where we stand in relation to Supply before I move the Motion.

Mr. Neil Maclean: Does the right hon. Gentleman propose to proceed with the Scottish Bill dealing with war-time adjustments?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would welcome that Bill, because it gives Scotland privileges which England at present enjoys.

Mr. Maclean: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are a number of Amendments down which would make the Bill more acceptable to the Scottish people?

Mr. Eden: Yes, Sir, I am aware of that; but I thought we might reach some measure of agreement.

CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS AND DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Mr. Speaker: acquainted the House that he had received a letter from Major Milner announcing his resignation of the office of Chairman of Ways and Means which he read to the House, as follows:

"Chairman of Ways and Means Office.

29th May, 1945.

My Dear Mr. Speaker,
Although constitutionally elected for the full term of this Parliament, I think it proper, having regard to the changed situation, to tender to the House, through you, my resignation of the Office of Chairman of Ways and Means.

I regard it as a great honour to have occupied one of the chief offices in the House of Commons for something over two years in these notable and strenuous days, and I desire to thank right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in all parts of the House for the courtesy and consideration they have shown to me.

May I say that I am particularly indebted to you for your unfailing consideration and many personal kindnesses.

To the Clerks at the Table and the officials of the House generally I would also wish to express my grateful thanks for their help and assistance at all times.

I have the honour to remain,

Yours very sincerely,

James Milner.

Colonel the Right Hon. D. Clifton Brown, M.P., Speaker,

House of Commons, S.W.1."

Mr. Speaker: I would like to add my warm thanks to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for the efficient and loyal service he has always given to me as Deputy-Speaker and to the House as Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Eden: I think that Members in all parts of the House would wish to be associated with what you have just said, Sir. I would like to say with what regret we heard the reading of that letter, and how much gratitude we feel for the work the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) has done for the House while he held this most responsible office. The letter which you have read necessitates certain changes in the recommendations, and I would like later to move that Mr. Charles Williams be Chairman of Ways and Means and Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew be Deputy-Chairman. Both those hon. Gentlemen are well known to the House: one comes from South of the Tweed and the other from North of the Tweed; and I hope their names will be acceptable to the House.

Mr. Attlee: I should like to associate my colleagues on this side with what the Leader, of the House has said, and to join in the thanks of the House to the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Sir Archibald Sinclair: On behalf of my hon. Friends, I should like to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The hon. and gallant Member for South-East Leeds (Major Milner) has served the House well, and we hear of his departure with regret.

Mr. Eden: I beg to move,
That Mr. Charles Williams be Chairman of Ways and Means, and Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew be Deputy-Chairman.

Question put, and agreed to.

NAVY, ARMY AND AIR EXPENDITURE, 1943

Resolved:
That this House will on Friday resolve itself into a Committee to consider the surpluses and deficits upon Navy, Army and Air Grants for the year ended 31st March, 1944, and the application of surplus receipts realised under certain Votes for Navy, Army and Air Services towards making good deficits in receipts under other Votes in the respective Departments.
That the Appropriation Accounts for the Navy, Army and Air Departments, which were presented upon the 18th January, 1945, the 16th January, 1945, and the 19th January, 1945, respectively be referred to the Committee."—[Mr. James Stuart.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES (SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1945)

Estimate presented,—of a further Sum required to be voted for the service of the year ending on 31st March, 1946 [by Command]; referred to the Committee of Supply, and to be printed. [No. 95.]

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL

Reported, with Amendments, from the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be considered To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 65.]

Minutes of Proceedings to be printed [No. 97].

STATUTORY RULES AND ORDERS, ETC.

Twelfth Report from the Select Committee, brought up, and read, as follows:

Your Committee have considered the Electoral Registration (No. 2) Regulations, 1945, a copy of which was presented this day, and are of the opinion that there are no reasons for drawing the special attention of the House to them on any of the grounds set out in the Order of Reference to the Committee.

Report to lie upon the Table.

Minutes of Proceedings of the Select Committee to be printed. [No. 94.]

Orders of the Day — REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

3.22 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Anderson): I beg to move,
That the Bill be re-committed to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 2, page 2, line 32 and Clause 59, page 42, line 44, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
May I say that the Government have no objection to accepting the Amendment to this Motion, which is to be moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whit by (Mr. Spearman)?

Mr. Spearman: I beg to move, in line 5, at end, add:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 45, page 34, line 31, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Spearman.

Sir Joseph Lamb: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Mr. Charles Williams in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(Procedure of Commission.)

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Peake): I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, to add:
(b) for the purposes of Sub-section (5) of that Section, the Minister making the proposals with respect to which the inquiry is being held shall be deemed to be a party to the inquiry and costs may be ordered to be paid to or by him accordingly.
This Amendment, fulfils an undertaking which I gave during the Committee stage, when the question was raised of the payment of costs before the Commission. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ilford (Mr. Hutchinson) doubted whether the Section of the Local Government Act which we are importing into Clause 2 of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Bill would fulfil the purposes which we have in mind, and this new paragraph is moved to make it clear that the Commission will be able to award costs against the Minister who brings forward a proposal for acquisition where the Commission think that the costs should be paid by the Crown.

Mr. Turton: I am very grateful to the Financial Secretary for going half way on this point. The Committee may remember that we made two points during the Committee stage one that a Minister should be able to pay the costs, and, secondly, that the expenses of the Commission would not be charged against the litigant. I hope the other point will be dealt with on the Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45.—(Increase in rental compensation under s. 2 of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939.)

Mr. Spearman: Mr. Spearman: I beg to move, in page 34, line 31, leave out "appointed day," and insert "eighth day of May, nineteen hundred and forty-five."

The object of the Amendment is to secure that those hotel owners who are going to receive a higher rent for their hotels which are still requisitioned at the end of the war shall receive that increased rent retrospectively from the end of the German war, namely, 8th May. I realise that it may be very difficult, from the


point of view of the Crown, to make that increased rent apply retrospectively to all hotels over the whole period, because, no doubt, many of them are being derequisitioned all the time, and therefore it might mean a great deal of work. What I propose is that those hotels which are still requisitioned after the war shall receive an increase in rent, provided that they are still requisitioned on the appointed day, retrospectively to the end of the war and not from the appointed day. Otherwise, it seems to me that the benefit of this rent increase is going to be minimised to a very great extent. The appointed day is an unknown time, and may be a long way ahead, and, in the meantime, the hotels will not be getting any increase in rent and will be suffering from a great injustice. I would like to point out that local hotel proprietors who have had their hotels requisitioned have suffered a very great hardship compared with their more fortunate rivals. I have no doubt that this applies to many places, but my own knowledge is only of Scarborough and Whitby, where for some years, at any rate, the economic value has been far above the level at the time of requisition, and, consequently, they have suffered very much compared with those who have been able to remain open, and I suggest that they should be shown that consideration now.

I realise that there may be some places where the hotels were fortunate to be taken over, because at that period there were no visitors, but there are places, like Scarborough and Whitby, and no doubt there are others, where that is quite un true and which have suffered very much from requisitioning. Scarborough was absolutely full at Whitsuntide; there were people sleeping in shelters, so there is no question of waiting for some future date before the hotel rents are worth more. I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that if they were de-requisitioned now they would benefit very greatly. It seems to me there are two methods of dealing with this problem. It might be said, though personally I should not think this would be a good way, "Draw lots and requisition certain houses and certain hotels, and for the people who have the bad luck to be taken over this will be their contribution to the war." The other method is to fix a rent for them, and I think that is probably more fair provided

the rents were equitable, that is, the market values were paid.

3.30 p.m.

I should like to add one final point. Many of the hotels in Scarborough which have been requisitioned are not being used. It may be that it is because they are receiving such poor rents from the State that the Treasury are not worrying very much. I am anxious to get all these hotels de-requisitioned because that is essential as much in the interests of the town as of the hotel proprietors, and I am hoping that if a proper rent were paid the Chancellor of the Exchequer might be more willing to co-operate with me in getting the Service Departments to derequisition the hotels they are not using than if the State is getting them very cheaply, as at present.

Sir John Mellor: I support the Amendment which, of course, covers all forms of requisitioned property and is not limited to hotels. I would only make the point that I think it is rather invidious that the improved compensation should commence to run only from the appointed day, because by Sub-section (2) the appointed day means such day as the Treasury may appoint, and they ought not to be tempted to postpone that date. After all, in this matter the Treasury is judge in its own cause, and I think it would be very much fairer from every point of view that the improved compensation should begin to run from a fixed date, and the proper date, in my submission, is that which is named in the Amendment, the 8th May. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Major York: Very briefly I wish to support the Amendment, because I want to impress upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it is not true to say that a very large number of properties involved have been protected from the economic blitz which has fallen upon certain parts of England. In my own constituency, had it not been for requisitioning, all the accommodation would have been taken up at the full economic rate. I hope the Chancellor will give the most sympathetic consideration to my hon. Friend's Amendment.

Sir J. Anderson: I should not like any of my hon. Friends to think that if I find it necessary to oppose this Amend-


ment my general attitude at this stage of the proceedings on the Bill is in any way unsympathetic. The position as I see it is this: In Committee the provisions of Clause 45 were inserted in the Bill as a concession to meet admitted hardships. Now my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Spearman) proposes that the benefits of the concession, instead of running from the appointed day, should run from the date at which hostilities in Europe came to an end. The objection to that is a purely practical one. It would in my judgment defeat the object of the concession which we have already provided in the Bill designed to meet the hardship of prolonged requisition—after the period of the emergency has, in respect of the majority of properties, come to an end—of a number of perhaps more or less arbitrarily selected properties at rents fixed in the emergency perhaps on a basis that reflected exceptional conditions which have come to an end with the emergency. If this concession is to be practical it must apply to a limited number of cases and avoid the large number of revisions of rent that would be involved if the concession were made applicable before the process of de-requisitioning, which I hope will now go on very rapidly, has covered large numbers of properties of all kinds. My hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir J. Mellor) is quite right in saying that the provisions we are dealing with here are general provisions and not designed specially to meet the case of hotels. There is a vast number of small properties that have been requisitioned, running into tens if not hundreds of thousands, which we want to dispose of, and when that has been done we will fix the appointed day, and then those properties which continue to be under requisition in the post-war period will have the benefit of the provisions of Clause 4.

Mr. Spearman: I realise my right hon. Friend's point, that it would make administrative difficulties, and that is why I only ask that it should apply to those hotels which are still requisitioned on the appointed day, so that those still requisitioned then should receive the increased rent retrospectively.

Sir J. Anderson: But my hon. Friend persists in treating this as if it were a special provision for hotels. Would he look at the case of the ordinary little

house? A vast number of houses occupied by troops are to be de-requisitioned. What he proposes is that where a property has been de-requisitioned before the appointed day. there should be no question of giving it the benefit of this concession, but if it is occupied one day after the appointed day it is to get the benefit of this concession and not only from the appointed day but retrospectively. Look at the inequalities which would result. Look at the temptation there would be for the Treasury—if such a Department as the Treasury were open to temptation at all—to defer the appointed day so that there should be no possible charge of inequality in the treatment of similar properties. I assure my hon. Friend that the Treasury will not be influenced at all—so far as I can speak for the Treasury during the next few months—in fixing the appointed day by any consideration of a saving by postponing the appointed day. We will fix the appointed day as soon as we feel that we can handle the problem. I hope that after that assurance my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Spearman: In view of my right hon. Friend's assurance that the Treasury will go out of their way to fix the appointed day as early as possible I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59.—(Interpretation, Etc.)

The Attorney-General (Sir David Maxwell Fyfe): I beg to move, in page 42, line 44, at end, insert:
(4) Where a Minister has acquired or has power to acquire any land under the Defence Acts or would have power so to acquire any land if he did not already own it, and that land contains part of a continuous main or pipe or the whole or part of works used in connection therewith, any rights necessary for or incidental to the maintenance or use of any part of the main or pipe which is in, over or under land not owned or acquired by the Minister may, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of this Act relating to the acquisition of easements, be acquired by him as, and, if so acquired by him, shall be deemed for all purposes to be, easements for the benefit of such of the first mentioned land as he owns or acquires:
Provided that in relation to the acquisition of any such rights, the reference in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section seven of this Act to easements which are in the opinion of the Minister essential to the full enjoyment of the land therein mentioned shall be construed as a reference to easements which


in the opinion of the Minister are essential to the full enjoyment of the main or pipe.
This Amendment deals with the position which arises in connection with the trunk oil pipelines which have been laid down by the Government. There may be a case for acquisition, under Clause 5, of the land for the pipes or the boosting stations which are attached to them, and also for acquisition of portions of the underground strata, but in some places the pipes are over ground and cross rivers and canals, in which case Clause 5 would be inappropriate. In that case we desire to acquire easements which will secure that these sections of the pipe can be used or maintained. There is a legal difficulty in the acquisition of easements and treating these as easements, because in the case of easements you have to have a dominant tenant, but in this case we are treating the pipe as the dominant tenant and taking power to acquire the easements for the carriage of the pipe on that basis. It is a simple if somewhat special point, and I commend the Amendment to the Committee.

Mr. Turton: I would like some further explanation on this point. Apparently this Amendment would give power to the Government to acquire certain easements, but it is an Amendment to Clause 59, which is purely an interpretation Clause. Can the learned Attorney-General, whom I congratulate on his new office, give any example of any other Act of Parliament where an interpretation Clause, which merely says what certain words mean in the Act, gives a Government Department power to acquire a fresh right? I suggest that either at a later stage or in another place this new Subsection, if we now agree to it, should be taken out of Clause 59 and inserted either as a new Clause or, if that is preferred, inserted in Clause 25 where we are dealing with deep lines. I feel that it is more germane to Clause 25 than to Clause 59, and I cannot see how any Minister can defend the insertion in an interpretation Clause of a new right to acquire land.

The Attorney-General: I had the other day an example on this very point of easement. In that case the definition of easement was extended in the definition of a Section of a Finance Act which was dealing with certain special provisions. It is not unheard of to deal with the

matter in this way and in this Bill I think the course we have taken is the most convenient one, because this new Sub-section will relate both to Part II and Part VI of the Bill. Therefore it seemed to me that the definition Clause was not an out of the way place in which to insert it. Of course if any hon. Member can suggest an improvement in drafting we will try to carry it out—I have so assured my hon. Friend on other occasions,, because I am always ready to consider what he says—but it did not seem to me that we were outraging precedent as severely as he suggested. I hope he will not press his opposition at this stage.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal) considered.

Clause I.—(The War Works Commission.)

Mr. Turton: Mr. Turton:I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at end, insert "by Order in Council."

We had a discussion upon this matter in Committee, and it was understood that at a later stage we should hear the Government's considered view on whether they could not appoint this Commission by Order in Council. It is clear that in fact the Commission will be appointed by Order in Council and what we want to have is the added assurance which we shall feel if the words of the Amendment are inserted in the Clause. It is most important in our view that this Commission should be appointed by His Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister and not dealt with by any inferior Minister giving his advice. The House will find later in Clause 1 that when in course of time this Commission is dissolved, it is to be by Order in Council. It does seem to be a reasonable argument that, if an Order in Council is to dissolve the Commission, an Order in Council should constitute the Commission, and I hope that the Government will now be persuaded to accept the words that I have moved.

3.45 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: I have considered my hon. Friend's suggestion very


carefully, but I do not think, on consideration, that it will really help his purpose. He suggests the addition of the words "by Order in Council." The Bill says "by His Majesty," without specifying the formalities. This means by His Majesty, on submission by the Prime Minister, and, in my view, it is unnecessary to add the formality which my hon. Friend suggests. The real purpose which my hon. Friend had in mind, as I understood his speech, was that if you add the words "Order in Council" you ensure that the recommendation is that of the Prime Minister and not of any other Minister. I think that my hon. Friend, or any hon. Members who have had to deal with these matters, will agree with me that Orders in Council deal, and must deal, with a great variety of matters on the structure of past Acts and on any organisation of the governmental machine which cannot come near the Prime Minister. The suggestion of my hon. Friend will not achieve, or go any way to achieving, his own purpose, and for that reason I would ask him not to press it and the House not to accept it.
My hon. Friend, as always, makes a good debating point by his reference to the provision as to a dissolution, but there is, in my view, a clear difference between the ending of the operations of the Commission altogether and the appointment of individual Members. The dissolution of the Commission brings to an end the working of the procedure which this House has erected in the Bill, and that is probably a matter which may be dealt with by the procedure of an Order in Council. It is really irrespective of my hon. Friend's main point as to who should recommend the appointment. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the assurance that there is ho intention on the part of the Government of depreciating in any way the importance of these appointments or the procedure of appointment by the Prime Minister and on that assurance will not press his Amendment.

Mr. Turton: In view of the assurance which has been given, in which, I understand, the Prime Minister will in effect make the appointment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5.—(Works.)

Mr. Turton: Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out "any of."

I have great hopes that this Amendment will be accepted, because I notice that the Financial Secretary was so charmed by my Amendment that he repeated it on a later Sub-section. It would make it clear, if paragraph (a) had these words omitted so as to read "the value of the works" instead of "the value of any of the works." It is a small point, little more than a drafting point, but it might give the Government Department an indication that, if it wanted to acquire a very small portion of a very large works, it could take a great deal of the land. For that reason I think that the Bill would be better if the words "any of" were left out.

Major York: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Peake: As my hon. Friend has said, this is very little more than a drafting Amendment, and we are pleased to accept it.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, leave out from "or," to "or," in line 16, and insert:
the said other person, his legal personal representatives or his successor in the carrying on of a trade or business in connection with the carrying on of which he incurred the expense in question.
Some of my hon. Friends were a little anxious on the Committee Stage with regard to the words in paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause:
or for some other person having no interest or a limited interest in the land.
These same words appear in the governing words of the first Sub-section and it is in order to tie up the person referred to in paragraph (a), with the person referred to in the governing words of the Subsection that these words are included. My hon. Friends were afraid that a case might be made before the Commission for the acquisition of property constructed at the expense of one aircraft manufacturer being preserved for the benefit of one of his competitors or something of that kind. At any rate, the introduction of these words does tie together the person referred to in paragraph (a) of the Sub-section with the governing words of the Clause.

Mr. Turton: This entirely meets our case and we are grateful to the Government for having given way on this important point.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment made.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, to leave out from the first "the," to end of line 26, and insert:
works should be available as war potential.
Paragraph (c) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause has given rise to a great deal of concern in the country. At the present time the Sub-section reads:
Where there are Government war works on the land, the power of acquisition shall be exercisable if…in the opinion of the Minister, the right to determine the use to which the works are put…ought…to be secured for the Crown.
The country generally feels that this will give the Government Department concerned far too wide a power to determine the use to which buildings will be put in the country as a whole. The Government, however, in the Committee stage, made it clear that these words were wider than was their intention. The Financial Secretary on 12th April said:
The value of the works may be comparatively small—and the object of (c) is really connected with our war potential."—[Official Report, 12th April, 1945; Vol. 409, c. 2092.]
These are the very words that we have to put into this Amendment. Nobody will deny the Government the right to secure that works which are quasi defence works, which are not under the Defence Acts but might well be of use to our defence in any inter-war period or in any other war which we hope we shall never have after this one. No one would deny the right of the Government to take these but it would be very wrong if a Government Department could dictate to an industry what use they should make of their works, especially as war works have been erected very largely at the expense of the private firms concerned. I ask the Government, therefore, to accept these words, which were their own words on the Committee stage, and I hope that with that explanation the Amendment will be accepted.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Peake: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for raising this matter on the Report stage, because on looking at my remarks during the Committee stage I think that perhaps they were unduly brief and perhaps a little too limited in their

application. It is true that one of the purposes of the inclusion of paragraph (c) is to meet cases which are truly cases of war potential. Paragraph (e), of course, gives the Government the right of acquisition where:
the right to determine the use to which the works are put…ought,…to be secured for the Crown.
It goes on to say:
and the case is not one where the land can be acquired under the Defence Acts…

4.0 p.m.

War potential, of course, is rather an indefinite phrase and I think, for that reason alone, the Amendment suggested by my hon. Friend would be unacceptable. When I spoke of "war potential" in the Committee stage I had in mind not only immediate use for war production but the possible conversion of a factory many years hence to a form of war production at a very quick pace. There may be cases, as I pointed out then, where it is undesirable that a given factory should be completely transformed, the machinery removed from it, and the character of its production altered. At the same time there may be a good case for a change in the production of the goods being produced at the time. Radar, I think, was the example I cited. Such a factory might well be turned to the production of ordinary civilian peace-time radio appliances, but it might be undesirable that that factory should be virtually dismantled and should begin to produce silk stockings or something of that character. That is one type of case where the Government want the right to determine the use in the future. There are, of course, other cases, to which I ought to have referred during the Committee stage, connected with the distribution of industry. These are factories which have been erected not at the expense of the land-owner on whose land they stand, but at the expense of the Crown or possibly of some other person who has no interest in the land. It may very well be desirable in the interests of diversification of industry, both in the development areas and outside, that the Government should have a say in the purpose to which these government controlled and government-erected factories should be put in the future. There may be no case for acquisition on the ground that the Government wish to consider the use themselves.

4.3 p.m.

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to:

1. National Loans Act, 1945.
2. Commercial Gas Act, 1945.
3. South Suburban Gas Act, 1945.
4. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act, 1945.
5. Pontypool Gas and Water Act, 1945.

REQUISITIONED LAND AND WAR WORKS BILL

Clause 5.—(Works.)

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 24, leave out from the first "the", to the end of line 26, and insert:
works should be available as war potential." [Mr. Turton.]

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Peake: As I was observing when we were interrupted, paragraph (c) may cover cases not only of war potential but cases of what I might call ultimate war potential in the distant future, and it may go even wider than that. My hon. Friends may say that in the case of factories, of course, you could make a case for their acquisition under paragraph (a) of the Clause. Well, that would depend on what the extent of the Government contribution had been to the cost of the factories. There might be cases where the Government contribution was not substantial enough to justify the Commission approving a purchase under paragraph (a), but paragraph (c), I think, goes even further. There are the cases of the deep shelters, for example, which may have little or no value in that value is not related to expenditure. They may have no commercial value of any kind. The Government may not wish to own them themselves or to use them themselves, but they may wish that their use may be controlled and that they should not be destroyed. There may also be cases of airfields where the runways are not in themselves of very much value in relation to the land but, at the same time, the Government wish to control the use in the interests of a proper development of civil aviation, or something of that kind. I hope, therefore,

my hon. Friend will see that his words, which I admit are the words I used on the Committee Stage, are not appropriate to an Act of Parliament and are, in fact, too narrow for the purposes which we have in mind.

4.15 p.m.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I quite appreciate the intention of the Government with regard to paragraph (c). I think there is no doubt that the object of retaining factories, runways, or whatever it might be, as war potential for future use, is a very admirable one, but I think it is a very limited one indeed and there can be comparatively few occasions when such use is likely to be required. In the majority of such cases the Government have other powers than the power given in paragraph (c). For instance, I believe it is desired to ensure that runways shall be retained to function as runways. That result can be secured in other ways than by paragraph (c). The Clause is much wider than that, and goes far beyond the scope of anything which seems to be required. The right to determine the use to which these works shall be put refers not only to works such as we have been discussing, but to works in a very much wider sphere, and it is difficult to see where the powers given under this paragraph would end. It is also difficult to see how the Government could put this paragraph into practical, effect. They have the power of acquisition of land—and one has to bear in mind that the whole of this Clause deals with the acquisition of land—and if they are to retain the land which they have acquired for themselves on the ground that it is right that they should determine the use of the works, then, obviously, they would do it, because they would have the right to use the works themselves.
The only practical time when paragraph (c) would be invoked is when the Government want to dispose of land for which it is first necessary to acquire the land, and then, having disposed of the land, to ensure that it is used only for certain specific purposes. If they are going to adopt that course I cannot see how it will be practicable. They are going to put upon the land—I see no other way of doing it—a covenant to ensure that that land shall not be used at any future time for any other purpose than the one they have described, for instance, the


manufacture of radio equipment. A manufacturer interested for the moment in radio equipment might be prepared to take a lease of land, subject to that condition, but I cannot conceive his investing capital in the acquisition of land which is subject to such a limited right of user as that. The possibility of recovering his outlay on purchase is practically gone, because he could only sell to a competitor in his own market. I cannot see that there would be any value whatsoever to the Government in achieving the object which they have in mind by the use of this paragraph. On the other hand, the Clause is so wide and the powers may be used for unforeseeable and unexpected purposes, that there is grave danger in it, and I hope my right hon. Friend will reconsider it with a view to limiting the extravagance of the powers in some appropriate way, perhaps in another place.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that this Clause is unnecessarily restrictive. In my constituency, along the Bath Road, there are many small garages which have been taken over, wholly or partly, by the Government for use in connection with work at nearby factories. These garages may be taken over altogether under this Clause, and I am sure that that is not the intention. My right hon. Friend talked about runways and underground shelters which it would be necessary to take over. Surely that is the object of the Amendment. Small roadside garages are not potential war works, and why should the Government have the right to determine what use they should be put to when they are not potential war works?

Captain Duncan: I would like to support my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in his attempt to limit paragraph (c) of this Clause. I recognise that the actual words used in the Amendment are probably not appropriate, that the words "war potential" are too vague, but I would like to impress upon the Government that the existing words of the Clause are very wide, and may be used in an unforeseeable manner. I would also like to impress upon the Government this fact, that there is a good deal of public anxiety and feeling on the width of this particular

paragraph, particularly among small men, who are not very well versed in legislation, and, in any case, this Bill is a very difficult one to understand. It is those people we want to protect, if we possibly can, against the over-wide powers which we think are contained in this paragraph. The Government, in paragraphs (a) and (b), have already almost as wide powers as they need, I think. Quite possibly, there will be exceptional cases for which paragraph (c) is necessary, but surely, for these few examples, it should be possible to define more clearly the exact purposes and conditions under which this paragraph should be used. I hope my right hon. Friend will have another look at this Clause and, if he cannot accept the Amendment, will see whether it can be amended in another place.

Mr. Peake: As my hon. and gallant Friend has just admitted, the words which it is proposed to introduce into the Clause are too narrow and too vague—

Mr. Ede: On a point of Order. Is the right hon. Gentleman allowed to address the House without first asking its leave?

Sir J. Anderson: I have listened carefully to the arguments which have been advanced by my hon. Friends in support of the Amendment, and I cannot help feeling that since they have been content to pass the provisions of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Clause they are now rather straining at a gnat, having swallowed a camel. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chichester (Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks) was quite right when he said that the provisions of 5 (1, c) will, in fact, apply only to a comparatively limited category but it is an important category. I think the House should realise that from the first introduction of this Bill there have been three clearly recognised and distinguished categories of case in which the Government desired to obtain power to acquire land. First, to realise its value; second, to be able to continue to use the land themselves; and, third, to be able to control the use. If this Amendment were carried the purposes of my hon. Friends would not, in practice, be realised. The only consequence might be—because we do not intend to use the provisions of 5 (1, c) except where the public interest justifies it—to compel the Government to have recourse to 5 (1, b) and thus to hold


and use continuously all the property in question.
Take the ordinary case of a shadow factory. It may be very difficult to establish that the factory has, and will continue to have, war potential, but nevertheless, a limited number of factories of a particular type might be thought to fall in the third category, to be factories which the Government would not wish to run continuously, but which they would not wish to dispose of outright, which they would allow to be used for non-martial purposes, retaining in some form or another power to resume possession if the public interest, at some future date, required it. That is one of the classes of case in which the right to control use might be of value in the public interest. My hon. Friends have had to admit that the actual words of the Amendment would not be satisfactory—

Mr. Turton: I altered the words in the Debate.

Sir J. Anderson: One can use words in conversation and Debate which are not apt in a legal instrument or an Act of Parliament. I used some words myself some time ago which found their way into a Clause, and later I had to say that I thought they must come out. The words my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) used even for the purposes of Debate were too narrow, and they will not do in the Clause. A suggestion has been made—and I want to be reasonable in dealing with thesematters—that perhaps we might consider doing something in another place. In present circumstances, I do not think it would be prudent to encourage a hope of that kind. I do not particularly want to see this Bill again when it goes from here, and I am not going to lend myself to a suggested arrangement by which the Bill should undergo changes elsewhere and then come back here for further consideration. I think my hon. Friends have been unnecessarily alarmed. I am sure there is no question of small roadside garages being acquired under this provision in order that the Government may control their use against some future contingency.

Brigadier-General Clifton Brown: Why not put in some words to guarantee it?

Sir J. Anderson: I am not going to put in words to guard against any risk that

some Government at some future date will apply the provisions of this Measure in a wholly unreasonable way. We have got on very well in the discussions on the Bill, and I suggest that after the explanations that have been given by my right hon. Friend and by me my hon. Friends might well be content to allow the matter to rest where it is.

Amendment negatived.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I gather that the hon. and gallant Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) does not wish to press his Amendment in page 3, line 30.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I do not propose to press this Amendment, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has put down an Amendment to be taken later which meets my objections and those of my hon. Friends.

Clause 7.—(Easements and other rights.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 4, line 24, after "Where," insert:
there are Government war works on any land constructed at the expense of the person who is the owner of that land and.
This Amendment and the three following Amendments are purely of a drafting nature.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 4, line 24, leave out "any," and insert "that."

In line 26, leave out "the owner thereof," and insert "that person."

In line 27, leave out "therein," and insert "in the land."—[The Attorney-General.]

Clause 8.—(Reference to Commission of proposals to acquire land or rights.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 8, leave out from "in," to "a," in line 10, and insert " the manner hereinafter specified."
I think it would be convenient, Mr. Speaker, if I dealt with this Amendment and the two following Amendments in line 14 and line 15 together, since they set out an amended formula as to the persons on whom the notices of proposal are to be served. The House will observe that the Bill at present requires that the Minister shall publish a notice


in such manner as appears to him best adapted for informing persons interested and the local planning authority.
We had some discussion upon that in Committee, and we now suggest that it should be extended as is proposed in these Amendments. The first half of the Amendment in line 15 provides that the notice shall be given and the copy shall be served first of all on the person getting compensation, secondly, to every person appearing from the register to be an owner or lessee, and thirdly, to the local planning authority. The House will see that the Amendment then goes on to provide that the Minister shall
cause to be published a copy thereof in such newspapers, if any, and in such other manner, if any, as appear to him to be appropriate.
I hope it will be in Order for me to say a word about that, rather glancing forward to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is to move, as the two things are very linked up. On the question of newspapers, we provide that the Minister can cause to be published a copy of the notice in a newspaper, but that is to be discretionary for him. We feel that it would be unnecessary in every case to have publication in a newspaper. There might be cases in which only one person would be concerned, and it would be a waste of time and money. Similarly, we could not accede to the suggestion that everybody who might possibly have an interest should be served, because that would mean so much referring as to make delay and expense inevitable. Therefore, we have tried to meet the wishes of a number of my hon. Friends by making the provision which I have just outlined. I do not think I need deal with the second part of the Amendment in any detail, because it follows, with very slight adaptation, several precedents, including that of the Housing Act, 1936, Section 167. I hope my hon. Friends will feel that we have gone a considerable way to meet their point, and that the House will accept these Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 14, leave out "and the local planning authority."—[The Attorney-General.]

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, at the end, insert:
The said notice shall be published as follows, that is to say, the Minister shall—

(a) serve a copy thereof on any person to whom compensation under paragraph (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section two or Sub-section (2) of Section three of the Compensation (Defence) Act, 1939, is in course of payment in respect of the land and, where the land is registered land within the meaning of the Land Registration Act, 1925, on every person appearing from the register to be an owner or a lessee of the land; and
(b) serve a copy thereof on the local planning authority within whose area the land is situated; and
(c) cause to be published a copy thereof in such newspapers, if any, and in such other manner, if any, as appear to him to be appropriate,
and the Minister shall also cause to be deposited with the said local planning authority a map identifying the land, and the authority shall permit that map to be inspected at all reasonable hours without payment.
Any notice required to be served under this Sub-section may be served either—

(i) by delivering it to the person on whom it is to be served; or
(ii) by leaving it at the usual or last known place of abode of that person; or
(iii) by sending it in a prepaid registered letter addressed to that person at his usual or last known place of abode; or
(iv) in the case of an incorporated company or body, by delivering it to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at their registered or principal office or sending it in a prepaid registered letter addressed to the secretary or clerk of the company or body at that office; or
(v) if it is not practicable after reasonable inquiry to ascertain the address of the person on whom it should be served, by addressing it to him and delivering it to some person on the land, or, if there is no person on the, land to whom it can be delivered, by displaying it in a prominent position on the land."

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 10, leave out "newspapers, if any," and insert:
local or other newspapers.
May I say, in general, that I and my hon. Friends are grateful for the main part of the Chancellor's proposed Amendment? It meets a great many of the points that we made in Committee, but not the major point. The major point is that we should in this Bill treat this matter of notice of proposals as in the case of Private Bill Procedure, or follow the very many precedents in similar Measures where it has been laid down that there


should be an advertisement in two successive weeks in a local or national newspaper. My Amendment to the proposed Amendment is really a compromise. The provision that the Chancellor may publish the notice in a newspaper if he wishes is really, with great respect to the Chancellor, no concession at all. Of course, if the Chancellor or any Minister wishes to publish the fact that he intends to take some land, he can do so, and the words in the proposed Amendment really mean nothing at all. I cannot understand why the Government should be frightened of this precaution of advertising these proposals so that nothing shall be done by any Government Department secretly and in the dark and the rights of the people shall not be taken away quietly. I recognise that there might be some cases in which it would be sufficient if the proposal were advertised in one newspaper and perhaps on one occasion. For that reason, my Amendment does not go as far as my Noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) and many of my hon. Friends originally intended to go. My Amendment is an attempt to get a last minute concession and a compromise concession out of the Government. It would only the tie Minister's hands to the extent that he would have to give some publication to his proprosal. The Amendment gives him a very wide choice. He can choose any newspaper in the whole of Britain for the advertisement. Surely the Government can grant us this small concession, which would be in line with all the precedents.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.
I feel it is essential that this information should be published in the newspapers. The provision as it stands gives the Chancellor a chance of running out on us. There are local newspapers in all the more populated parts of the country; they publish details of farm sales and other sales, details of properties and so on, and they are followed by business people, solicitors, land agents and so forth. Even the sparsely populated parts of the country have some representative newspaper. In another connection there are legal obligations to give notice in such newspapers. For instance, if anybody proposes to close a footpath, he has to publish the fact in a local newspaper, and I have never heard of anybody being unable to find

such a local newspaper. If an effort is made a newspaper can always be found. I ask the Chancellor to consider favourably this very small Amendment, which would be of real value.

Mr. Gallacher: I have had occasion to remark before that hon. Members opposite are never satisfied. The land-grabbers are always on the grab. It is pathetic to sit here and realise the amount of hardship and suffering that there is outside, and then to witness the meticulous care that is taken to ensure that these fellows are paid compensation for land that has been stolen. Every care is taken—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I must point out to the hon. Member that this Amendment deals only with notices in local or other newspapers.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to come to the Amendment. Already in the Amendment that was moved by the Chancellor and accepted by the House there is every consideration given—far too much consideration given—to those people; and now we get this Amendment to the Amendment. It is not enough that the Chancellor should take power to publish a notice in a newspaper. They must have him tied down to publish it whether it is necessary to publish it or not. I do not suppose that they are contemplating publishing it in the "Daily Worker." Consider this for a moment. A piece of land is affected and there are one or two owners ready to grab at compensation. The Chancellor serves a notice on them and then notifies the planning authority. Does the hon. Member mean to insist that the Chancellor must in that situation, quite unnecessarily, publish a notice in a local paper? Has he no respect for the right hon. Gentleman's intelligence?

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I gather that the hon. Member is addressing his question to me. On most pieces of land there are rights of way to a village or a town. If this is done in a hole-and-corner way, the rights of the people are disregarded.

Mr. Gallacher: Surely the hon. Member is not trying to put it across me that he is interested in the rights of the people. You can easily get a situation where the owner or lessee of a piece of land is known


and can be approached at any time, so each individual who has a claim on the land has a notice.

Colonel Clarke: Suppose the individuals are soldiers serving in Burma.

Mr. Silverman: What good will a local newspaper be to them?

Mr. Gallacher: If the owners and the town planning authority are served with notices, do hon. Members insist that the Chancellor must put a notice in a local paper? Of course, if he cannot get in touch with the owners or lessees it may be necessary to put a notice in a local paper, or a national paper, or a Burmese paper if he has an idea that the owner is abroad on service, but to suggest that, willy-nilly, whether it is necessary or not, the Chancellor must be put to the trouble and expense of inserting a notice in a local paper is really going beyond any bound of intelligence at all. The Chancellor has the power to make certain that every interest will get to know what is going to happen, and the Amendment should be rejected.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I think the hon. Member has not read the Clause to which the Amendment refers. The Minister is obliged to enter into this publication of details in cases where he proposes to discharge or modify any restriction as to the user of any land. In other words, notice is required before the Minister enters into discussion with the local individual in order that his rights may be restored to him. I am astonished that the hon. Member does not wish this publication to take place in case some right wing Tory Government does a deal with a right wing Tory individual over a piece of land. The point about the Amendment is that we should have as much publication as we can get in these local newspapers. I do not understand why the Government is being so difficult in this matter. We had considerable discussion on it on the Town and Country Planning Bill. The Second Schedule lays down very clearly the procedure which has to be followed in regard to publication and the words there are very nearly, if not almost precisely, those which we used in the Amendment on the preceding page of the Order Paper. We are not going as far as that to-day. We only wish

to include the words to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) has referred. I do not understand why the Government should be so recalcitrant.

Sir J. Anderson: May I, before coming to the subject matter of the Amendment, tender to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, my congratulations on the position in which you appear for the first time? I will do my best to explain to my hon. Friends who have accused the Government of trying to run out and of being recalcitrant, why we see difficulty in accepting the Amendment. In the first place, in criticising the new Clause, which is the result of very careful consideration of the arguments which were advanced at an earlier stage, my hon. Friends seem to me to have left entirely out of account certain very important considerations. They argue as if, unless the Government are more or less tied hand and foot they are liable to do unreasonable things. The Government has not got a free hand. Under the Clause as proposed to be amended the Minister concerned will still be under the most specific obligation to publish in such manner as appears to him best adapted for informing the persons affected. The scheme of the Amendment is perfectly simple. It is that notice should be given directly to all persons known to be directly affected and, apart from that, other means should be adopted where appropriate, of informing other persons who may be concerned.
There is another point that my hon. Friends have left out of account, no doubt inadvertently. The local authority has to be informed and a map has to be deposited, and at an earlier stage the Government gave an assurance that they would arrange with local authorities for access to be obtainable to the notice and the map. I think we have gone a very long way indeed towards meeting the perfectly reasonable arguments put forward at an earlier stage. The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) suggested that the reference to newspapers in the Government Amendment was quite valueless because the words "if any" qualify the reference, but his Amendment would not be watertight. If the Government are to be suspected of running out, there is a considerable space through which they could escape in the Amendment, because the reference to newspapers is still qualified by the word "appro-


priate" and, if the publication is not appropriate in a particular case, I should have thought the Amendment would not impose on the Government any obligation to publish. Take the simple case of a plot of land with no right of way, with a building on it, which the Government have used and desire to retain. If the owner of the building is effectively notified of the proposal and the local authority is told, is there any need to publish in a newspaper?
The Government do not in the least desire to avoid any form of publication which will serve a useful purpose, but to have to publish where such publication adds nothing to the information appears to me a foolish proceeding, especially at this time when it is a matter of considerable difficulty in some cases to find an opportunity for publication in a newspaper without incurring considerable delay. The Government Amendment has this definite advantage, that the reference to newspapers suffices to call the attention of the Department concerned to that method of publication. It puts them in the position of having to apply their minds to the question whether the case is one in which publication in the newspaper would be appropriate. If my hon. Friends will look at the proposals of the Government as a whole, I think they will agree that we really have in substance met the case which was argued so fully in Committee.

Mr. Silverman: I want to make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. There are some 11 or 12 Parliamentary days left and there are 62 Clauses in the Bill. We are dealing with the third Amendment to Clause 8. No one, not even the movers of the Amendment, can regard this as a serious or substantial Amendment. There is no question of principle involved. It is a pure point of administrative detail. If in these circumstances the right hon. Gentleman is going to give a long, careful, detailed answer to every kind of argument which can possibly be raised, he is placing a powerful weapon in the hands of those who may desire to obstruct him in the passage of the Bill. It is not in the least necessary at this stage of this Bill in this Parliament to devote so much time and care and argument to a point which never had any substance at all.

5.0 p.m.

Captain Duncan: I had no intention of speaking until the hon. Gentleman spoke. I will at once deny any intention of obstructing the passage of the Bill, and I would like your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. The hon. Gentleman has stated that I have been obstructing this Bill, and I understand it is not in Order to impute obstruction.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is certainly not in Order to impute obstruction.

Mr. Silverman: I withdraw anything I have said that was improper, but it has not usually been held to be out of Order to say of a particular Amendment or speech that, in the opinion of the speaker, it is an obstructive Amendment or speech.

Captain Duncan: I naturally accept the withdrawal of the hon. Member. The only other thing I would like to say, in view of the hon. Gentleman's speech, is that this is a complicated Bill and that the Amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) deal with points that were left over on the Committee stage. It is only a cleaning-up process that is being done now, and there is no intention of obstruction or delay. I hope that the Bill, which we all recognise is necessary for the unwinding of the war effort, will be passed and that there will be no unnecessary waste of time on any side of the House.

Mr. Turton: In view of the arguments that have been advanced, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words were inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out "the progress of scientific research or".
On the Committee stage we accepted an Amendment to safeguard the interests of societies interested in the progress of scientific research. This and the two following Amendments are merely redrafting in order to meet the point which was raised in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 23, leave out "a," and insert "the local planning authority, by any."

In line 28, at end, insert:
or,
(c) in a case where it appears to him that the proposals will or may affect the progress of scientific research, by a society or body having as its object or one of its objects the furtherance of scientific research, being a society or body the character and membership of which is such that it is, in his opinion, proper that their views should be considered."—[Mr. Peake.]

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, to leave out "he shall," and insert "then."
This and the following two Amendments deal with a different point. During the Committee stage it was suggested that, owing to the time limit to the initiation of proceedings under this part of the Bill for compulsory purchase, the Department might, in order to safeguard their position, serve a multitude of notices and then take no proceedings whatever to follow the matter up. The point was a genuine one, and we undertook to consider it. These Amendments are put down to meet it, and they provide that, if objection to a proposal is made, the Minister must take the matter to the Commission within a period of two months.

Mr. Turton: This is a most valuable concession, and we are grateful to, the Government for making it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 5, line 29, at end, insert:
he shall, not later than two months from the time so specified.
In line 36, after "Sub-section," insert:
and has not been afforded an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by them."—[Mr. Peake.]

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 5, line 36, after "Sub-section," insert:
or to any other person who appears to them to be interested or to any local authority, society or body the character and membership of which is such that it is in the opinion of the Commission proper that their views should be considered.
Even with the Minister's last Amendment, it may well be that a body which some Minister has decided shall not be accounted a proper body to object, will not be able later to go before the Commission. All parties want the scope of the Commission to be unfettered and they shall be able to decide whom they think are the relevant persons to object to any

proposal. If the Chancellor is going to give way on the Amendment I will curtail my remarks.

Mr. Peake: No.

Mr. Turton: I thought my right hon. Friend was expressing favour with what I said. This Clause, which deals with who shall be heard by whom, is very complicated, and not at all clear. I regret that the Chancellor did not explain his last Amendment in page 5, line 36. It makes the position better than it was before, but it is still complicated. First of all, the Minister decides who is a fit and proper person to object. We then have the Commission calling before them, I hope, whomsoever they select, and then we have the Commission holding a local inquiry. Then it would seem, that the only people who can appear at the inquiry are those whom the Minister has decided to be the right people to object. It is all very confusing and is rather like the Order which the Financial Secretary was explaining at a late hour last night. It would be unfortunate if a Bill over which we have taken so much time went out in this rather difficult form. If the words I am suggesting were put in, it will be a good deal clearer than it is.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Amendment merely appears to extend the scope of the bodies or individuals who, under Sub-section (2, b) have the right to appear before a Commission. It makes clear that any body or society which has a genuine reason for objection should be enabled to appear before the Commission.

The Attorney-General: If my hon. Friends will consider the way in which the Clause is already framed, they will see that difficulties do not really exist. The only matter that the Minister can decide is under Sub-section (2, b), as to whether the society or body is one whose views should be heard. We have discussed that point, and that was the decision of the Committee. Once a Minister has decided that it is open for the society or body to make its objections. I do not see where the fears of my hon. Friend lie in that direction. All the bodies which will be concerned with these problems, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the local bodies which


my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield (Sir G. Jeffreys) referred to, are clearly all bodies whose views would be welcomed by the Minister on a point like this. Once he has recognised the body, it is for the body to make its objection. It is a well-recognised principle in the field of local government and in many other fields that, if you are given a right to make an objection, you must make it, and if you do not take the trouble to make it, you will not be heard. That does not put any difficult or indignity or trouble in the way of the body. If it has made objection, then Sub-section (3) is mandatory, and the body will be heard by the person appointed, unless it has been before the Commission in accordance with the Amendment which the House has just passed. I know the difficulty that sometimes appears of appreciating the interlocking of Amendments, but if we take it by steps, we see that it is reasonable that the Minister should decide the fitness of the body. After that it is up to the body to make objection, and if it makes objection it will be heard.

Mr. Turton: Do I understand my hon. and learned Friend to say that, in his view, the Commission should not be entitled to hear a body if the Minister has said that it is not a proper body to be heard, and that there will be no appeal from such a decision of the Minister?

5.1.5 p.m.

The Attorney-General: That is the field for the Minister. The objection is made to him. He examines it at that early stage. He has the circumstances of the body before him and if, in his opinion, it is not proper that their views should be considered I suggest to the House that we should agree with the view of the Committee when this point was discussed that that is a proper matter for ministerial decision.

Amendment negatived.

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 6, line 2, at end, insert:
(5) Where the Board of Trade certify—

(a) that the land which is to be acquired or for the benefit of which the easement or right to be acquired or which is subject to the restriction to be discharged or modified, as the case may be, is or is part of industrial premises; and
(b) that those premises in substance owe their existing character, so far as the buildings and structures thereon are concerned, to Government war work; and

(c) that in the interests of an orderly transition from war conditions to peace conditions it is expedient that the ability of the Crown to dispose of the premises, together with all necessary easements and other rights over and in relation to other land, should be established without delay.
and the Minister of Town and Country Planning certifies that the proposals are, in his opinion, consistent in all the circumstances with the proper use and development of land, the preceding provisions of this Section shall have effect subject to the following modifications, that is to say, for the reference in Sub-section (1) thereof to a period of three months there shall be substituted a reference to a period of fourteen days, and Sub-section (4) thereof shall not apply:
Provided that this Sub-section shall not apply where the proposals are for the acquisition of land which includes the whole or any part of a common, open space or fuel or field garden allotment or is the property of any local authority.
In this Sub-section the expression 'industrial premises' includes industrial premises in an incomplete state, and the expression 'buildings and structures' shall be construed accordingly.
Hon. Members will recall that during the Committee stage it was agreed that Sub-section (5) of Clause 8, dealing with works which were certified by the President of the Board of Trade, should be withdrawn and that at this stage there should be moved a provision in somewhat different terms the effect of which would be not to withdraw entirely from the scope of the Commission works to which Subsection (5) of Clause 8 related, but to provide for dealing with them under a simplified and expedited procedure. I trust my hon. Friends who were interested in this matter on the Committee stage will agree that the proposed new Sub-section fully and faithfully carries out the undertakings which were given during the Committee stage. That being so, I need not address the House at any length. I would merely point out that we have preserved the position of the Minister of Town and Country Planning in rather a different form. We require from him here a preliminary certificate, and that, of course, makes unnecessary the provision which appears elsewhere under which where planning considerations appear to be involved the Commission has to refer specially to a Minister. We also preserve the exclusion of common lands from the provisions of this particular Sub-section.

Captain Duncan: I desire to thank my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works for this Amendment. It was he who thought of this


idea and suggested it to the President of the Board of Trade and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure hon. Members, at any rate on this side of the House, join with me in thanking my hon. Friend.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I am sure that not only hon. Members on the other side of the House, but hon. Members on this side, will join in thanking the Government for the way in which they have met the wishes expressed on all sides concerning the further safeguarding of open spaces and commons, and also for the very ingenious way in which the Ministry of Town and Country Planning has been given a place in this Clause of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 6, line 4, after "forthwith," insert:
send a copy thereof to any person from whom he received any such objection as is specified in Sub-section (2) of this Section and.
This Amendment and the two others on this Clause in the name of my right hon. Friend are designed to carry out an undertaking given by the Attorney-General on the Committee stage. Their effect is to ensure that a copy of the Commission's Report will be sent to all persons from whom a notice of objection was received.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 4, after "such," insert "other", in line 5, leave out "best adapted for informing persons interested," and insert "appropriate."—[Mr. Peake.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Powers of Minister on receipt of report of Commission.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 6, line 14, after "land," insert:
and the land consists either of the site of the works or of land contiguous or adjacent thereto which was occupied with the site of the works for the whole or any part of the period after the construction thereof and, in the opinion of the Minister, must be held therewith if the works are to be properly utilised and maintained.
This Amendment, although it appears a little complicated, is designed to meet a point about which some of my hon. Friends have been concerned. It relates to the acquisition not of the war works

but of land which is contiguous or adjacent thereto. The effect of the Amendment is that it will make the decision of the Commission final in cases where there is a proposal to acquire contiguous or adjacent land, if that contiguous or adjacent land has not been occupied with war works during the war period. It will allay the fear that new areas of land not used with the war works during the war period may be acquired by the Government under their powers of acquiring contiguous or adjacent land, but that the Commission might report against such a proposal and that the Minister might then ask for an affirmative Resolution to over-ride the Commission.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for this Amendment. It meets the point of the Amendment which other hon. Members and I put down on an earlier Clause, and I wish to express our thanks.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 30, after "it," insert:
or if the easement or right is proposed to be acquired under Sub-section (2) of Section seven of this Act."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, after "a," insert:
building occupied with or a.
During the Committee stage some of my hon. Friends expressed fears that the definition of "dwelling houses," to which special protection is given by the Bill, was somewhat narrow and they desired that outbuildings and possibly farm buildings occupied together with a dwelling-house should have the same protection, so that there should not be severance of a dwelling-house from other buildings occupied with it. These words are designed to meet the point which my hon. Friends had in view.

Sir G. Jeffreys: Once again I have to express our thanks to my right hon. Friend for inserting words which meet the point of the Amendment which we had put down. In this case, I think it is an important point because if agricultural buildings which form part of the general homestead of a farm—farm buildings surrounding a farmhouse—were not excluded, there would be a very real gap in this Bill in the protection of agriculture. The words which are now proposed to be


inserted, "building occupied with or a" meet the point, and I am obliged to my right hon. Friend for his Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 7, line 25, after "of," insert "a building occupied with or."—[Mr. Peake.]

Clause ii.—(Principles on which Commission are to act.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 45, after "of," insert "a building occupied with or."

In page 10, line 1, after "or," insert "a building occupied therewith or."

In line 17, after "a," insert "building occupied with a dwelling-house or of a."

In line 18, after "dwelling-house," insert "building occupied with a dwelling-house."—[Mr. Peake.]

CLAUSE 12,—(Overriding provision as to purchase of certain commons and open spaces.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, leave out:
to which the public have rights of access or an," and insert "or.
As hon. Members will remember, we discussed the definition of commons and open spaces at some length on the Committee stage. Special protection is now to be given to commons and open spaces in that unless substituted land is made available there will have to be an affirmative Resolution of both Houses. We suggested that the proper definition of "common" was a common to which the public had right of access. Those words involved difficulty on further consideration, and we propose to omit them.

Mr. Geoffrey Hutchinson: As my right hon. Friend has said, it will be within the recollection of the House that on the Committee stage there was expressed in all quarters of the House a general feeling that certain protection should be given to commons and open spaces. It is only because that feeling was very general that I desire to say a word about it this afternoon. I think my right hon. Friend has met us very handsomely. After a little pressure, if I may be allowed to say so, he introduced a new Clause to give protection to these open spaces. The new Clause in due course appeared on the Paper, but it then

turned out that by reason of a certain difficulty in the matter of the definition to which my right hon. Friend has referred, the new Clause did not, in fact, afford the intended protection to a very large number of commons. Most of the rural commons would actually not have been protected. My right hon. Friend saw the point when his attention was directed to it. Now this Amendment puts the matter right.
I desire to say that the right hon. Gentleman has really met my point completely, and we can now be satisfied that we have complete protection for all forms of open spaces, rural commons and all classes of land on which the public have enjoyed access, under the terms of some Act of Parliament or by long established usage or in any other way. I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for what he has done, and to express to him the gratitude which I believe will be felt in all quarters of the House for the complete manner in which he has met us on this rather difficult point.

Mr. Graham White: I desire to associate myself with the remarks that have just been made from the other side of the House.

Colonel Clarke: As one who has strenuously fought all through the proceedings of this Bill for some reference to this sort of common I desire to say that I am extremely grateful to the Chancellor for having met us so handsomely. The matter affects a very large area of land in my constituency.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Stopping up or diversion of highways.)

5.30 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 12, line 12, leave out "or expedient."
This is a very important matter. The House will remember that we inserted the words "in the public interest," during the Committee stage and that it was the now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works who, before he reached that high office, suggested that the words were meaningless unless we left out the words "or expedient." The Government undertook to reconsider the drafting of this matter, and I hope that they are now satisfied that the words "or expedient" should come out.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is correct. It was myself who undertook that the words should be considered. The words have been considered, and I am afraid that I am still of the same opinion that the Clause would be too narrow if those words were left out. I appreciate the dialectical point of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works who, as the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Manningham-Buller), raised this point during the Committee stage, but it seems to me that there may well be a broad and clear distinction between what a Minister would be prepared to say was necessary in the public interest and what was expedient. One has to look at a phrase like this in accordance with the subject matter. When one is considering the stopping up of some highway, for instance, which may be concerned with some other hereditament, factory or the like, it may be difficult to say that it is absolutely necessary, while it is clear that it is expedient for the better use of the other properties involved. I am sorry that I cannot meet my hon. Friends on the point, because I know the attention that they have given to it, but those who have to deal with the actual administration have considered the proposal from their point of view. We have all considered it from the point of view of the legal effect, and we now ask the House to allow us to have the wider form of words.

Mr. Turton: In view of the explanation given by the Attorney-General, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 17.—(Publication of proposed orders and reference to Commission.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 14, line 19, after "month," insert:
not enjoying the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts, 1920.
The House will recollect that we inserted a definition during the Committee stage of Clause 17 as to who was to be served with a notice of proposal coming under this part of the Bill. I raised the question of what would happen to a tenant under the Rent Restriction Acts and suggested that he had as great an interest in his occupation as any

tenant, if not a greater interest than any tenant, outside those Acts and with a longer tenancy. The present Home Secretary then said that there was something in the point, and that he would look into the matter and try to put it right. As the Government had not, by last night, apparently reached the position of knowing what Amendment would be required, I have tried my hand at drafting one. I am not very happy at the drafting, and no doubt the Government can devise better words, but I do claim that a tenant who has the protection of the Rent Restriction Acts should also be protected by this Measure. He should be told, when proposals are being made which will affect his security of tenure. I cannot believe that the House and the country would wish such tenants to be dispossessed of their cottages because they have not had sufficient notice to enable them to make objection under this part of the Measure. This is a matter of great importance and it differs from the Amendment I last moved in that there is a point of justice involved in it.

Major York: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Attorney-General: We have carried out the pledge and looked into this point with some care. The notice in question is one of intention compulsorily to acquire the land, if the Commission report in favour of the proposal. I do not want to go into the metaphysics of the definition of "tenancy." Under the Rent Restriction Acts with which my hon. Friend, in a former manifestation, was very familiar some years ago, but I think he would agree with me that a tenant under those Acts has, in law, no such interest in land as we contemplate here. For that purpose, it would be inappropriate on the technical side to include him in the list of those to whom the notice should be sent. I am sure that the House is much more concerned with the practical side of what is going to happen in these circumstances. I want to deal with that point very shortly.
The primary effect will be the change of landlord. With his knowledge of these matters I am sure my hon. Friend had in mind the question of the Crown not being bound in certain circumstances by the Rent Restriction Acts, but I am happy to inform him that as a matter of practice


the Crown do treat themselves as bound, and give notice to tenants to which they would be entitled, whether they are protected tenants or not. More than that, the Crown fall in with the necessity of providing alternative accommodation and taking any steps to see that that accommodation is there. Therefore, I can assure my hon. Friend that the protected tenants will not in practice be damnified. I hope that with that assurance he will believe that his point has been considered and will not press it further on this occasion.

Mr. Turton: In view of the general attitude of the Government I would like to say that I am not persuaded on this occasion, and that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 18.—(Proceedings after reference to Commission.)

Amendment made: In page 15, line 19, at end, insert:
and has not been afforded an opportunity of appearing before and being heard by them."—[Mr. Peake.]

CLAUSE 21.—(Temporary continuance of stopping up, etc.)

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 18, line 11, to leave out "months", and insert:
weeks, unless the Commission in their Report have otherwise recommended.
I apologise to the House for having put in a manuscript Amendment embodying this proposal. Actually, I drafted it last night, but by an oversight it did not go in with the other Amendments.
This is a matter which we considered at great length on the Committee stage, when it was pointed out that at the termination of the continuous stopping-up of a highway there might be a delay of six months before people could enjoy, their right of way. The then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport explained that in normal cases he would require only a few weeks, but that there might be cases which would present great engineering difficulties. For that reason we have altered our original proposal to make "six months" into "28 days"; we suggest a compromise proposal to meet the case of great engineering difficulty. I hope the Government will accept this compromise.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have not much to add to what has been said by the mover. The Clause as it stands at present seems to legislate for the exception rather than for the general rule. It will be exceptional for any longer period to be required; we have that on the authority of the ex-Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport. I believe that his successor, whom I venture to congratulate upon his first appearance upon the Treasury Bench, agrees with that view. It is for that reason that we framed the Amendment in these words, which will make it possible for the longer period to be available, in the case of engineering or other difficulties making it impossible for highways to be completed in a normal time.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Muff: I should like to ask the Attorney-General what is the effect of this Amendment, and whether it will interfere with the general practice which is followed when a public highway is to be closed. The present practice is for an advertisement to be inserted in the Press, people who wish to object can object and then, my experience as a magistrate has been, two magistrates certify the matter, and it goes to Quarter Sessions. I should like to ask the Attorney-General whether the effect of the Amendment is to depart from the ancient practice of this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): With regard to the point raised by the hon. Member opposite, I have consulted the Attorney-General, and the answer is "None." That is under a different procedure from the procedure under this Bill. The old procedure under the Highway Act is not affected. As to the points raised by the mover and seconder of the Amendment, I think that the House would be in general sympathy with the aim they have in view, which is, that once a decision has been taken to open up a highway the quicker it is done the better. I hope to persuade them that their Amendment does not quite achieve that object. There are two points to be considered. The first is the question of time. They agree that there will be some cases, I hope not many, in which a period of up to six months might be


necessary. That longer period is not required as a matter of administrative convenience but as a matter of hard engineering fact. Some of these roadways have in fact been buried under 10 feet of earth, they have ceased to exist for perhaps 1,000 yards, and it is quite a feat to restore them as proper roads. How soon that can be done depends on the labour available, the number of bulldozers, etc., so that in some cases a longer period will be required.
I do not think it will speed things up if a shorter period is put into the Bill. I would say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Petersfield Sir G. Jeffreys) that just as it is no use giving a soldier an order which he cannot carry out, it is no use inserting in an Act of Parliament a time limit which cannot be kept. My hon. and gallant Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) say, "Very well, if you require a longer period, surely you can go along to the Commission and ask for it." At first sight that is an attractive proposition, but the job of this Commission, broadly speaking, is to say whether the war works are to stay or go. If there is imposed on the Commission the additional burden of deciding things like time limits, and how long it will take for the work to be carried out, it is putting on them the sort of responsibility which is put on the official referee in the courts. All sorts of matters will have to be argued as to the availability of labour and contractors. I think the Commission will have plenty to do without having that burden put upon them.
It may be that the Minister himself may decide to abandon the proposals. He makes the proposals, and three months have to elapse while objections can be sent in. Possibly my hon. and gallant Friend might come along and seek to persuade the Minister to abandon the proposals on his own account. If he has the responsibility of doing in six weeks a job which is likely to take five or six months he is very unlikely to abandon the proposals. He will wait until the Commission can sit so as to get an extension of time. The mover and seconder of the Amendment may come to the conclusion that if it were accepted it would tend further to delay the opening of these highways. In conclusion, I would say that the Ministry of War Transport is really

on the same side as my hon. Friends. I have not been there long, but so far as I can understand their object it is that traffic should flow about the country. We do not want to stop up highways but to open them. We are on the side of the angels in this. If I have not persuaded my hon. Friends entirely, I hope that on the assurance that expedition will be the order of the day, they will see their way to withdraw this Amendment.

Mr. Ede: I should like to congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary on his first appearance at the Box, but really when he recollects his own performances when a certain Act was before the House last year, and when I sat in front of him, he will realise that there are very few angels on the back benches, when they move Amendments against their own Government. I think the point that has been raised is one of great importance—this question of the reopening of highways that have been closed, some of them important highways linking up small towns and villages. I hope that what the Parliamentary Secretary has said with regard to the attitude of his Ministry will, in fact, be carried out. I am very nervous about the effects of the war on highway law generally. Previously there was a very different method of dealing with the closing and diversion of highways. I hope that the speeches that have been made this afternoon by the Attorney-General and by the Parliamentary Secretary indicate that we are to get back very shortly to the time when there will only be the way that existed before the war for diverting and closing highways, namely, the action of justices in Quarter Sessions, a special Act of Parliament or a town planning scheme. I think the third method was a very disastrous innovation, and I hope we are not to have any further extension of the way in which the public can be inconvenienced by the closing of ancient highways.

Lieut.-Commander Joynson-Hicks: I would like to pay my tribute to the way in which the Parliamentary Secretary has dealt with the House in this matter, and to say how much we appreciate it. The only possible further extension of the good will of the House would have been given had the Parliamentary Secretary seen his way to accept this Amendment. It was an unfortunate omission in his maiden speech from the Front Bench. We


should have welcomed it very much. I cannot believe there is any practical difficulty in the matter, whereas there is a substantial question of principle involved here. We have an emergency authority which has been given to the Government to stop up these highways, but after that authority has been brought to an end the public should have their right restored to them, and to extend the date is undoubtedly to give a further six months in which to deprive the public of their use of the highway. I cannot feel that that is right.
My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary referred to the practical difficulties in the matter. I cannot really see them. There is the exceptional case of a road buried under 10 feet of soil for a length of a thousand yards, but in such a case as that there will be very little difficulty in adjusting the time so that the requisite work could be done within a specific time limit, without requiring an additional six months' time-lag before access to the road is restored to the public. I feel also that the other case mentioned merely involves a matter of administration which could be surmounted perfectly easily. I hope my hon. Friend will look again at this matter. I appreciate that he has not had quite so much time to consider it from his present point of view as perhaps from his previous point of view, but I hope that with the advice, ingenuity and experience now at his disposal he will be able to find a way out of this delay in restoring to the public what they are entitled to have.

Mr. Turton: In view of the speech of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 26.—(Acquisition by local authorities.)

Sir J. Anderson: I beg to move, in page 21, line 32, leave out "Minister of Home Security," and insert "Secretary of State."
This Amendment is consequential on changes that have taken place within the last few days. Hon. Members may perhaps know that two days ago an Order-in-Council was passed, bringing to an end the Ministry of Home Security. That change imposes upon us the necessity of making a small Amendment in the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): This Amendment is not consequential in a Parliamentary sense.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 29.—(Removal of works and restoration of land.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 24, line 7, after "land," insert:
or where the value of any land has been diminished by damage caused by Government war use thereof.
This Amendment and the next two standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer originated with my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). Clause 29 gives the Minister powers to remove works constructed on land, and to do such other work on land for the purpose of restoring the land as he thinks fit, and he can also, in order to carry out those two purposes, enter upon any other land of which he is not in possession. But the Minister's powers under Clause 29 are limited to the case in which Government war work has been done on the land. My hon. Friends desire to extend the powers of the Minister to a further class of case, which is, where the value of any land has been diminished by damage caused by Government war use. We think this Amendment is a good one. It increases the powers of the Executive, and I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend and his colleagues on appreciating, perhaps rather late in the day, the beneficent character of this Measure.

Mr. Turton: I am grateful to the Government for having accepted these words. It is quite true that when the Chancellor first introduced this Bill I should never have trusted him with the powers of restoring land up and down the country, but we have made it our object in the whole of the fight on this Bill to see that the land of Britain is restored, whether it has been damaged or ravaged by the war. This is a great opportunity which I hope Government Departments will use, where land has been damaged by war use. One can think of training grounds, bomb damage—[Interruption.] Open-cast coal is a case where the Government have already acted, I believe not with full powers. This will give them legal justification for so acting.
I hope that now the Government have accepted this principle, they will instruct


all Government Departments to restore the damage they have created up and down Britain.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 24, line 15, leave out from "before," to "to," in line 16, and insert:
the work was done or the damage was caused.
In line 16, leave out "other."—[Sir J. Anderson.]

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I beg to move, in page 24, line 16, after "as," insert:
after obtaining the opinion of the Minister of Town and Country Planning as to the general measures considered by him desirable for the restoration of land in that district.
The House will remember that when we discussed this matter earlier the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave an assurance that in cases of restoration by a Government Department the regional planning officer of the Ministry of Town and Country Planning would be consulted. This was so valuable an assurance that we felt that we would like to have it in the Bill; not that we distrust the Chancellor, but because we think that the attention of Departments may not have been drawn to it, especially in view of the changes in the Government. It is valuable for each Government Department to be able to see that they should consult the regional planning officers, who have a considerable position in the country, before they deal with works of restoration. I would ask the Chancellor to consider very carefully whether he could insert these words, which have the approval of such bodies as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England.

Colonel Clarke: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir J. Anderson: It is true that I gave the assurance to which my hon. Friend has referred, and I do not in any way recede from what I said; but, as to putting words into the Bill to impose upon Ministers who may be primarily concerned in proceedings under the Bill a statutory duty of consulting with specified colleagues, I see very great objection in principle. The Government cannot carry on its business in the complex situation with which we have to deal unless there is continual consultation between Minister

and Minister, and it is wrong, I respectfully submit, to try to provide for such consultations in particular cases by specifying statutory requirements, which would be quite unenforceable, which would add nothing to the general duty—which, indeed, would tend to subtract from the general obligation—of Ministers at all points to consult those of their colleagues who may be concerned. We have inserted in this Bill, in order to reassure hon. Members, provisions requiring the intervention of particular Ministers where specific obligations of such Ministers in relation to proceedings under this Bill could be defined. We have provided, for example, for certificates by the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Town and Country Planning in certain circumstances. But it is quite a different matter to provide by specific statutory words for mere consultation. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friends will agree not to press this Amendment.

Mr. Turton: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend has repeated the assurance, which I am sure will be read by all the new Ministers, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 36.—(Notice to treat to acquire easements or other rights.)

Amendment made: In page 29, line 22, after "manner," insert:
(whether in newspapers or otherwise)."—[The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 37.—(Method of compulsory acquisition of easements and rights.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 29, line 27, leave out "fourteen days," and insert "two months."
Under Sub-section (1) of this Clause the Minister, if he is of opinion that he will be unable, or unable without undue delay, to acquire an easement or right by agreement may execute a deed poll at any time after 14 days of the service of the notice. This limit seemed, on consideration, a little summary, and the Amendment substitutes two months, so as to give the parties time to negotiate.

Amendment agreed to.

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 30, line 3, after "shall," insert:
except for the purposes of proceedings commenced not later than two years after the execution thereof.


I am glad to inform the House that this also is an Amendment of relaxation. Under Sub-section (4), a statement in a deed poll, made in the acquiring of an easement, is held to be conclusive evidence. The requirements deal with various matters, including the service of notice to treat for an easement relating to water in which a special procedure is involved. While we do not think that the question should be unconditionally open to litigation, we have again, on consideration, thought that we might have been rather strict, and it is desired to leave the possibility of questioning the matter on the ground of publication open for a period of two years.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 51.—(Saving for Agreements.)

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 38, line 5, at end, insert:
(3) Where, whether before or after the commencement of this Act and in connection with the construction of any Government war works on any land, an undertaking in writing that the works shall be removed or the land restored has, whether during, before or after the time of the construction thereof, been given by or on behalf of any Minister to any society or body concerned with the preservation of amenities enjoyed by the public or to any local authority, no Minister, local authority or combination of local authorities shall, by reason only of the construction of the works, be entitled to acquire the land or any interest in or rights over that land under Part II or Part V of this Act without the consent of that society or body or authority.
During the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) had some criticism of this Clause. The purpose of the Clause was to prevent the Bill being used to override written agreements given at the time of requisitioning. My hon. Friend pointed out that the Clause covered agreements with persons having an interest in the land; but, in his view, it did not go far enough, because there were cases where undertakings had been given in writing to societies interested in amenity questions, to local authorities, and possibly to other similar bodies. We have drafted this Amendment to meet my hon. Friend's point.

Mr. Keeling: My right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary pointed out during the Committee stage that assurances given to local authorities or to amenity societies, unless they happened to be the owners of the land

in question, were not enforceable, because there was no consideration, and he went so far as to suggest that because they were not enforceable they could be torn up if the owner of the land did not want them carried out. The Committee took strong exception to that view, and I am glad that the Government have accepted the criticism of the Committee and have, by their Amendment, given statutory force to undertakings given to local authorities and to amenity societies to remove war works or restore the land.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 59.—(Interpretation, etc.)

Amendment made:

In page 42, line 13, at end, insert:
 "local planning authority" means in relation to any land with respect to which a planning scheme is in force, the responsible authority under the scheme, and, in relation to other land, the interim development authority within the meaning of the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943."[Sir J. Anderson.]

CLAUSE 60.—(Application to Scotland.)

Amendments made:

In page 43, line 39, after "Act," insert:
for any reference to the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, there shall be substituted a reference to the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) (Scotland) Act, 1943.

In page 44, line 33, at end, insert:
(7) In Section eight paragraph (a) of Subsection (1) shall have effect as if—

(i) the words "where the land is registered land within the meaning of the Land Registration Act, 1925," were omitted, and
(ii) for the word "register" there were substituted the words "valuation roll." "—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

CLAUSE 61.—(Application to Northern Inland.)

The Attorney-General: I beg to move, in page 47, line 23, after "to," insert:
registered land within the meaning of the Land Registration Act, 1925, there shall be substituted a reference to registered land to which the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, 1891, applies, and for any reference to.
This Amendment and the three following Amendments merely co-ordinate the provisions of this Bill with the existing legislation in Northern Ireland.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 47, line 41, leave out "fourteen days," and insert "two months."

In line 18, after "shall," insert:
except for the purposes of proceedings commenced not later than two years after the execution thereof.

In line 27, at end, insert:
(9) For any reference to a justices' licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor granted in accordance with the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, there shall be substituted a reference to a licence for the sale of intoxicating liquor taken out under Part II of the Finance (1909–1910) Act, 1910, and for any reference to section ten of the Finance Act, 1942, there shall be substituted a reference to section three of the Finance Act (Northern Ireland), 1936, as extended by section two of the Finance Act (Northern Ireland), 1942.
(10) References to land subject to be en closed under the enclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, to fuel or field garden allotments and to drainage boards shall be omitted.
(11) For any reference to the Town and Country Planning (Interim Development) Act, 1943, there shall be substituted a reference to the Planning (Interim Development) Act (Northern Ireland), 1944."—[The Attorney-General.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.14 p.m.

Sir J. Anderson: When the Government introduced this Bill they fully realised that it was complicated and highly technical, that it raised many points of principle, and that a variety of interests, public as well as private, were affected by it. Therefore, it was no surprise to the Government that a large number of Amendments should have appeared on the Order Paper and have been keenly debated. While, at certain points, it did seem as if proceedings on the Bill were rather halting, I myself, and I think I can speak for my right hon. Friends on this Bench, never at any time felt that there was any intention in any quarter to obstruct the proceedings. As a result of deliberations in Committee and on Report, a number of Amendments have been made. I hope that my hon. Friends who have felt that they were under a special obligation to exercise continuous vigilance while the Bill went through its process of examination in Committee will feel that, in the result, their efforts have been adequately rewarded.
I would like, for my part, to say—and this is my honest belief—that the Bill in its present form is a better Bill than the one that we introduced some months ago. I know there is other business before the House and I do not want to take

up time, but I should just like to say that I am very sensible of the consideration that has been shown to the Government in all quarters while we have been discussing these difficult and technical matters, and I, personally, am grateful to my hon. Friends for the consideration that they have shown to me and my right hon. Friends on this Bench.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Turton: When this Bill was introduced, I and a number of my hon. Friends felt strongly that the Bill went far beyond the purposes of what was required, and I remember at that stage defining those purposes under three headings—that the Government should be allowed to obtain land for defence purposes as speedily as possible, that, in order to secure full employment, there should be an accelerated procedure for obtaining factories, and, lastly, that the land of Britain should be restored wherever possible where it had been ravaged or damaged by war. The Debates on this Bill have secured those objects, and have taken away a lot of the infringements of the rights of private individuals and commoners and safeguards of the interests of the reinstatement of Britain after the war. I should like, on my part, to pay my tribute to the work that the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary have done in steering this Bill through the House. I think it has been as difficult a Bill to steer as any put in the hands of Ministers in recent years, and they have only got it through by their skill in Parliamentary Debate and by the conciliatory attitude which they have adopted towards those of us who have tried to improve the Bill within the objects which we had in mind.
I should like to say how pleased I am that we have got this restoration of Britain implanted in the Bill now in two Clauses—Clause 29 and 52—and I hope that the Government will circularise Government Departments to insist that this land is restored, wherever possible. It is far better to have the land restored by a Government Department than to pay out compensation to other persons, because, for all we know, when compensation is paid, it might not get right into the land, whereas, if the Government carry out the work of restoration that, we know, will be done.
The whole merit of this Bill will depend on the Commission and on who the


Government select for the Commission. In our view, it is more likely that the Commission will be a good one now that it is no longer to be appointed by the Treasury, but will be a Commission appointed by His Majesty on the advice of the Prime Minister. I appeal to the Government to select men on the Commission who have both knowledge and affection for rural England. I think it is very important that these men should not merely be lawyers. It is not the lawyer type that we want, though, no doubt, legal qualities are very valuable. It is men who have got real affection and knowledge of rural England who will be required to determine these problems that will come between Government Departments and the individual, and I have great hopes that, if we get a strong and wise Commission, we will, by this Bill, have secured that Britain is changed over from war to peace in a condition in which the right of private enterprise will be respected, and in which Britain, a battered but resisting bastion against Europe, will come to a peaceful, happier and more fruitful stage after the war.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: I have had the opportunity on several occasions of listening in to the Debates on the Committee stage of this Bill, and there is no question about it that the Chancellor, having a responsibility for seeing to it that the best possible use was made of the works that have been built out of the exigencies and necessities of war, has had a tough time of it putting this Bill through. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there was no intention to make obstruction. That may be so, but the one thing that has been made as clear as anything is that, in the process of carrying through what should be quite a simple Bill, the one thing that stands out most is that the landowners of this country are not prepared to give up an inch of land without the most tenacious fight—no, not a blade of grass. The hon. Member who has just spoken has made a fight all the way for the landowners. He says, "Of course, the Government have the right to get land for war purposes." Such condescension. We have got a Government representing the people of this country. We have got millions of soldiers fighting to defend this country. The Government, presumably, are representing the people, but the landowners can get up and say, "We will allow the

Government to take a small piece of land here or there for war purposes." What a situation.
The Chancellor comes to us on the Report stage and says that it is a complicated and highly technical Bill, when it is the simplest question that ever could be presented to the people. Here are war works on land, and, in order to dispose of them, it is necessary that there should be control of the land on which they are built and control of the land adjacent to the factories, so that there can be entry and egress. It is a simple proposition, but it has got to be made complicated and highly technical because of the land system that operates in this country. The hon. Member who represents the landowners wants to get the land back to the landlords, he wants to retain the private ownership of land. But millions of men, fighting and battling to save this country from the slavery of Fascism, are not going to stand for a few parasitic individuals claiming to own the land, when they themselves come back and are crowded into the smallest possible space because of the inability of the Government to obtain areas of land for the purpose of developing the country.
I say to the Government, and to the Government that will follow this Government in a very short period, that there should be no need whatever for a complicated and highly technical Bill. I am certain that, if there was a popular publication of the discussions that have gone on in the Committee stage of this Bill, the Tories would be swept out of this House with such a flood that they would never dare to show themselves again. Take the people crowded into the cities—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Charles Williams): I have been trying very hard to see exactly where these things come into the Bill. It is a rather narrow Bill, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, and I do not think that the Third Reading is the occasion to raise questions of nationalisation or housing.

Mr. Gallacher: I just wanted to say to the Government, and to the Government which will succeed it, that there should be no need whatever for what the Chancellor calls a complicated and highly technical Bill on such a simple question. All the Government have to do, speaking in the name of 45,000,000 people, is to say,


"We are going to take that land because it is necessary in the interest of the people and in order to rebuild Britain."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but that is exactly what is not in the Bill, and, on Third Reading, we are only allowed to talk about what is in the Bill. That is why I asked the hon. Gentleman to leave that line alone.

Mr. Gallacher: What is in the Bill is a complicated and very highly technical way of dealing with the land on which war works are built or adjacent land. Why should it be necessary to have a complicated and highly technical Bill for that? All you have got to say is that the land on which the works are built and the land adjacent, which is necessary for the works, is going to be taken over, and that, if anybody can come along and prove that they have any right to that land, you will listen to them. The Chancellor and the Tory Government—it was a Tory-dominated Government even before the pilgrims came home—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am sorry, but this matter of returning pilgrims is not in the Bill.

Mr. Gallacher: The Chancellor and the Government were in the position of having to avoid exposing the landowners of this country and exposing the fact that they have no right to the land whatever, and that is why they have got to make the Bill complicated. The Chancellor is perfectly well aware of the fact that large numbers of people affected by the Bill could never have proved their right to the land. The Government should have said that it was necessary, for realising the value of the works or because the land was necessary for the development of the works to take it over. Then the hon. Member who speaks for the landowners would have had the right to come along and try to prove that he had a right to that land. But no, when dealing with a matter of this kind it is necessary to have a complicated and highly technical Bill. Put the onus on proving their claim on the owners, and you will not have to pay compensation to any of them.

6.30 p.m.

Colonel Clarke: I have been in the Chamber during the proceedings on this

Bill as much as the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I have been here all through, not only when matters that concern the private landlord were being discussed but also when the discussions affected equally the public landlord, the National Trust, those who enjoy common rights, the municipal owners of land, catchment area authorities and so on. Their battle has occupied just as much time as that of any private landlord. In addition, the House was most crowded when the Clauses which concern open spaces and footpaths were considered, far more so than was the case when the matter concerned the private landlord. At the beginning of the Second Reading Debate, I was one of those associated with moving the rejection of the Bill because I felt that it was difficult to see how it could be re-drafted and brought in again. That action was not taken and in the course of time we have really attained the objective for which we hoped.
I wish to thank the Ministers and Parliamentary Secretaries on the Front Bench who listened to the arguments we brought forward, and, in many cases, saw the force of them and agreed to alter the Bill in many ways. I would also like to pay a tribute to a private Member—the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton)—who has been the spirit of the reformation we have achieved in this Bill. We did not want in any way to interfere with factories which might affect employment, and at the same time we did not want to risk the Government losing valuable capital which had been put into war works. We were out to see that there should be no retention of commons and open spaces and that they should be handed back as soon as possible to those who should enjoy them, with the least possible damage accruing as a result of the war. Lastly, there was the limited and very precious agricultural land of England which should be reduced as little as might be through the effects of the war. I support the plea made by my hon. Friend that, as far as possible, land which has been damaged during the war, land which has been used for tanks and artillery and cut up by obstacles to tanks and so on, should be restored by the Government. They have the money, the machines and the services and I believe they have, in prisoner-of-war labour, a great pool of labour which might be used,


and I hope that it will be used. That is all I have to say, and I congratulate the Minister upon having got the Bill through.

6.34 p.m.

Sir G. Jeffreys: As one of those who, it the outset, seconded the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, I would like to say how much this Bill has been improved in Committee, and how much we recognise the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Financial Secretary have met many of our objections, and, indeed, have adopted bodily a good many of our Amendments. It is hardly too much to say that the parents of this Bill would not recognise the Bill if they were to look at it now, as compared with what it was when it was brought into the House, so much has it been altered and so much, in our estimation, has it been improved. There is only one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), and that is, that the Bill is, and was, unduly complicated. I believe that a Bill could have been brought on which would have been equally effective and very much less complicated. That is a matter largely of drafting, and it is a pity that it was not drafted in a more simple manner.
In all the Amendments which I and my hon. Friends have moved and supported in the course of these proceedings, we have never lost sight of the desirability of saving public money. That is not an unimportant point. I would say with reference to what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton(Mr. Turton) have said, with regard to the undertaking by Government Departments of the restoration and rehabilitation of land, that that is not only desirable in itself because the Government have the power to do it more effectively than any private owners or groups of private owners, but if that course is adopted it will save public money.

Mr. Gallacher: The hon. and gallant Member's colleague who spoke a short time ago spoke for private enterprise in England. Are we to take it from the hon. and gallant Member that he is opposing him and proposing that the Government can do the job better than private enterprise?

Sir G. Jeffreys: I do not know that it is really necessary for me to answer the hon. Member. I was making my point in my own way and I hope that I may be allowed to do so. I suggest, in particular, that where there are some great works, or a series of works which take up, as in the case of some of the biggest airfields and their surroundings, a large amount of the land and property of a variety of owners, some of them big and some of them small—I have personal knowledge of a very formidable tank obstacle extending for many miles over the properties of many persons, large owners and small owners—where it is a question of restoring the land damaged by such works, it is obvious that one authority, and that preferably a Government Department, could command the labour, machinery and the means generally of doing the work, not excluding the priorities which would be granted to Government Departments.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the coalmines?

Sir G. Jeffreys: I said nothing about coalmines.

Mr. Gallacher: It is the same principle.

Sir G. Jeffreys: It is obvious that, in a case of that kind, a Government Department could do the work not only quicker, but probably more economically than if it were left to a number of private owners. Some private owners would probably be very small men without the means to do it at all. If they were paid a lump sum, some parts of the land would never be filled in at all. Other parts might be filled in by those who had more means with which to do it. Therefore, in those cases the Government would get value for their money if they carried out the work themselves, particularly with the aid of prisoners of war.

Mr. E. J. Williams: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand that it is possible on the Third Reading of a Bill for an hon. Member to deal with omissions from the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: It is clear that an hon. Member can only talk of what is in the Bill and not on what he would like to have seen in the Bill, and, therefore, omissions from the Bill are out of Order.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I was not referring to omissions from the Bill but to what is in


the Bill, in Clause 39. I was supporting the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, and by another hon. Member also, that the provisions of that particular Clause ought to be taken advantage of in all possible cases by the Government, and that, if they were taken advantage of, not only would the work be likely to be more effectively done, but public money would be likely to be saved.

Mr. Gallacher: Good old private enterprise.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I have nothing further to add. I have apparently given some satisfaction in my views to the hon. Member opposite. This Bill has been enormously improved in its course through Committee and many of us have cause to be grateful to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the way in which he has met our objections and adopted our Amendments, and the Bill is now a very much better Bill than when it was first introduced.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. G. Hutchinson: When this Bill was first introduced it aroused serious misgivings in the minds of local authorities and in the minds of other persons who were the owners or responsible for the administration of public open spaces, commons and places of that nature. I believe that all those misgivings ought now to be dispelled. The Bill now provides adequate protection. It will ensure that those open spaces and commons which have been diverted to other purposes during the war will be returned to their original use and will again be made available for public enjoyment. It is right that we should express to my right hon. Friend the thanks of those who are interested in these places for the manner in which he has dealt with the matter in this Bill.
There is only one other observation which I desire to make. I would remind my right hon. Friend that in the case of many of these open spaces and, in particular, in the case of the rural commons and the metropolitan commons which have been taken over for war purposes, there are really no means at the disposal of those who are responsible for these commons to rehabilitate them for use as public open spaces. My right hon. Friend has taken certain powers in this Bill and I

hope that he will exercise those powers and do for those who are responsible for the management of these places that which they have not the funds to do for themselves.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (BOUNDARY COMMISSION) BILL

Standing Committee A discharged from considering the Bill.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

LIABILITIES (WAR-TIME ADJUSTMENT) (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]

Standing Committee B discharged from considering the Bill.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Mr. Buchan-Hepburn.]

FORESTRY BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

6.46 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: I was not a Member of the Committee dealing with this Bill, but I would like to say on Third Reading that I think the Bill in its present form is rather lacking in omitting to direct what kind of individuals are to compose the Commission. I think it is somewhat unfortunate that there is not a clearer distinction in this Bill as to the qualifications of the future members. I think, in particular, acquaintance with the timber trade ought to have been specifically named as a qualification for appointment to this new Commission, and I hope my right hon. Friend will consider that when this matter comes up for consideration.

6.48 p.m.

Mr. McKinlay: I wish to say how grateful Scottish Members are to see the Solicitor-General in his place, because this Bill applies to Scot-


land, and we are grateful also that the Under-Secretary of State is present. However, I must express the regret of the Scottish Members that the Secretary of State for Scotland is not even within ear shot of this first success of the new régime.

6.49 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Walkden: I am sure we are all glad that this valuable Bill has gone through Committee unscathed for I do not think it has been damaged at all in that dangerous process. I am sure the House will give it its Third Reading with great pleasure, as I support it very gladly. Although this Bill only occupies 14 pages of paper, it is in my view one of the greatest Measures this Parliament has carried. Its effects will be very long-term and will make a valuable accretion to the wealth of our country. The development of our forestry has obviously long been necessary. The depredations of two wars have made it imperative, and the new Measure ensures that the industry will become a great one, will employ a large number of people, and will add very greatly to the wealth of the country.
I venture to say that the provisions as to the appointment of the Commissioners will work out satisfactorily. Fears are generally groundless when things are done in the English way. The appointment of Commissioners has always been made carefully and, with the good advice of whatever Minister makes arrangements for them, I have every confidence that this will be sensibly carried out. The strengthening of the composition of the Commissioners is very commendable in my judgment. Indeed, this is a model Bill for public enterprise. Those who have to carry out its provisions will act under a Minister whose duty it will be to safeguard and defend and help them in their work when once this House, through the Ministry, has agreed upon forestry policy, and undoubtedly it will be based on the splendid reports which we have had in the past from the Commissioners, who have acted in a detached way. That will be the foundation for future policy and, in my judgment, that policy will be strengthened as time goes on. Indeed, undertakings were given on Second Reading that there would be a good progressive policy in forestry, and I feel confident that those undertakings will be carried out.
I thought the suggestion a good one that the House can lay down a line of

policy and the Commissioners, whose duty it will he to execute it, will be undisturbed in their work. Whether General Elections happen or do not happen, the Commissioners can go on as an executive body—they are advisory and they are consultative, but they are also executive. An example of how things would work was given in the Debate, namely, what had happened in regard to the Colonies, where the House had agreed upon a development policy involving an expenditure of about £120,000,000 spread over 10 years. I would like to see something like that done for forestry for then we should know that the work would go on for 10 years without let or hindrance regardless of political happenings in this country or elsewhere. We on this side of the House are very pleased with this Bill. We think it will enable the Commissioners to do their work still better in the future when the control of the operations will be with this House and not detached, as in the case of some statutory bodies.

6.52 p.m.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: While I still have the right to say a word in this House as a Forestry Commissioner I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for the consideration and assurance which he has given in respect of some of the misgivings which my colleagues on the Forestry Commission and I have expressed with regard to the Bill. By the time it left the Committee yesterday we were satisfied in all reasonable ways. I hope my right hon. Friend will always receive the same courteous consideration at Question Time that the House has shown me in forestry matters for a great many years.

6.53 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Before the Bill leaves this House I would like to express on behalf of the Government, and I am sure on behalf of all Members of the House, our appreciation of the work that has been done by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope) during the years that he has been associated with the Forestry Commission. I should like also to express to him my personal thanks in a very sincere way for the attitude he has adopted throughout. I know that in the early days of the discussions he did not approve of all


the proposals—which was very natural and very understandable—but I hope and think we have succeeded in allaying his apprehensions. I am most grateful to him for the very generous way in which he has met the various suggestions which I, and my right hon Friend the Member for West Stirling (Mr. T. Johnston), have made from time to time.
I would only say one word in answer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail). We discussed this question yesterday upstairs, and I explained, in answer to an Amendment suggesting that representatives of certain interests should be appointed to the Committee, that we thought, in order to get a really businesslike Commission to carry on this job properly, it was better not to have representatives of any one interest, because otherwise it would inevitably result in claims being put forward by other interests to be represented.

Sir J Nall: The Bill as it stands indicates that the Commission should be composed wholly of one interest—

Mr. Hudson: No.

Sir J. Nall: —namely, persons concerned in forestry. It would at least have been reasonable to have one Member who was concerned with consuming the products of forestry.

Mr. Hudson: We intend to try to get the best people, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. A. Walk-den) suggested, and the personnel of the future Commission, I feel sure, will satisfy my hon. Friend when he sees who are eventually appointed. I hope his fears will be as much allayed as those of my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Rye. I am much obliged to the House for their kindness in passing the Bill through so quickly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CAMPS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

6.55 p.m.

The Minister of Education (Mr. Richard Law): I beg to move, "That this Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a very short Bill. I wish that all Bills were as short. In particular, I wish that all Education Bills were as short as this. But it is also an extremely good Bill, and I do not think that anyone on either side of the House will have cause to dispute its passage now. Another great advantage that this Bill has, it seems to me, is that everything it has to say is really said in the short title. It is entitled:
An Act to transfer the functions of the Minister of Health under the Camps Act, 1939, to the Minister of Education.
I cannot believe that in any quarter of the House there will be any objection to that course, but I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I went back a little and refreshed the minds of hon. Members on the antecedents of this Bill.
Some years ago now, in those far-off days when wax seemed likely to come, there was presented to the House—in March, 1939—a Bill which I think was called the Camps Bill, the purpose of which was to provide, in country districts, camps which could be used in an emergency to help with the evacuation of school-children and to supplement the billeting arrangements which had been made. It was always envisaged, even at that time, that if the emergency did not occur, or when the emergency had passed, these camps should revert to educational purposes. It is still our intention, now that the emergency has passed, that these camps should be used as school and holiday camps. However, if these camps are to revert, not so much to their original purpose as to the purpose that was originally contemplated, I think the House will agree that it is only sensible and appropriate that they should come under the Minister of Education instead of the Minister of Health. It is the sole purpose of this Bill to make that transfer and to bring these camps under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Education.
I do not think it is necessary for me to elaborate upon the merits of having these camps. That was agreed in 1939, before the war, and I am sure that we must all be very glad indeed to think that at any rate one of the instruments of war—because that is what these camps were—is now to be converted to the arts of peace. There is no doubt whatever that the children of this country will benefit enor-


mously from the existence of these camps, and I hope there will be no opposition to the passage of this Bill on either side of the House.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think this Measure is very appropriately brought in at this stage as one of the first Measures that this House is asked to consider after the end of the European war. These camps have, done good work during the war. I had the privilege of visiting several of them myself, and some most valuable experimental educational work has been carried out, especially in the way of providing residential education for children who had not previously had the advantage of participating in that form of education. I recollect visiting two very fine camps which took children from the City of Birmingham, and which were situated in Cannock Chase. One, at Pipe-wood, which was used by girls, became quite famous for the success of the experiment which was there carried on, and I can only say that I hope there will be a very wide extension of these facilities for children. Two years ago there was an amazing response to a questionnaire sent out by the Federation of Women's Institutes. Ninety-nine per cent. of the replies from women's institutes all over the country said they thought every child should have a period of residential qualification during its senior school career. That represents a substantial alteration in the outlook of working-class parents on this problem of residential education. The advantages of these places also consist in their not being so formalised that only the routine of education, as practised in the ordinary schools, is carried on. There are opportunities for experiment, both in class arrangement and the way in which studies are managed.
Undoubtedly a difficulty that was inherent at the time these camps were started is that there has been dual control by two Ministries. When one visited a camp as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education one had to ask permission to enter the kitchen, because that was under the control of the Ministry of Health. There were some camps in which the relationship between the staff responsible for cooking and the staff responsible for education was not too happy. By bringing the whole of the administration under one Ministry we can eliminate that, and I hope we shall be

able to enforce, more than we have been able to do in the past, the idea that the school meal, especially in a residential school, is no small part of the educational training that the child receives. I hope also that it will mean, in the words of one of the right hon. Gentleman's illustrious predecessors, that the headmaster will be "captain on his own quarter deck," that there will be no doubt that inside the camp the whole of the arrangements will be under his control and that it will be recognised that the whole place is an educational institution.
The future of our educational system is now being shaped in the administration of the somewhat longer Act for which the present Minister of Labour was responsible last year, and which certainly he could never have expected to get through in one evening. I hope that in the administration of that Act the Measure we are passing to-night will be the means of enabling valuable and continuous experiments to be carried out, and that we shall be able to provide, by means of residential education, opportunities for every child to have some experience of camp life. I would like to plead that no camps should be of too short a duration. I have had experience of conducting many boys' camps, and I have found that for the first two nights nobody sleeps and that for the last two days the boys were meeting in committees to decide exactly how little of their remaining pocket money need be spent as a present for mother to persuade her that they had been thinking of her all the time they had been away. When one takes that period out of a week or fortnight it does not leave very much, especially if, in addition, the weather happens to be bad for three or four days—no uncommon thing in England. I welcome this Bill, and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House will do everything they can to assist him in its passage.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: I think it is a happy thing that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, in his first appearance here in his new office, should be transacting this particular piece of business. I wish him well in his job and, if I may say so, I wish even more well his Parliamentary Secretary. She will remember that before the days of evacuation we were faced with the problem of


whether we could, as a side wind, get into the evacuation scheme something which might be more constructive for education. I suppose I have asked the recent Minister of Education at least 20 times when he intended to transfer these camps from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Education. I realised his difficulties; indeed, we were responsible in those days for putting these camps under the Ministry of Health, because it was expected that mothers, and even grand mothers, as well as children and other people, might have to go into these hutments. But soon afterwards, as the Parliamentary Secretary will remember, we had to re-examine the matter, because they were hardly fit for permanent occupation by young children.
I wonder whether the House realises that these camps were the first experiment in residential schools for children between 11 and 14 on any basis other than the open air schools, which previously had been provided by local education authorities. I repeat, what I have said before, what the headmaster of Cranleigh told me. I asked him several times what was the secret of the success of his school and he replied, "It is based on the fact that there is space." At that school the scholars could move about, they reconstructed a lot of the territory and they rebuilt the pavilion. Scholars who came from Ilford constructed an agricultural high school. At another school I visited the county badge system was used under the State authority, and that system, which has been resumed in Hertfordshire, Dorset shire and elsewhere, has been another of the valuable experiments which has come out of the war.

Mr. Silverman: Had they old school ties, too?

Mr. Lindsay: These camps are now to be transferred, and the National Camps Corporation is to come under the Ministry of Education. The principle has now been established, and I would like to support everything which was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) about the value of a period of residential education. Whatever our views may be about board schools and day schools I think few people would contest what he said, that a period of residence is of enormous value to a boy or girl at that age.
How is it proposed that these 30 or 40 camp schools are to be used? Will they be let to the local education authorities as such, or be retained by the Ministry of Education so that boys and girls can be sent there on a national basis? In other words, are they to be allied with local education authorities and gradually become part of their structure, or are they to be used in a national way? During the Debates on the Education Act many of us, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir G. Schuster) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) made out a case for residential adult colleges, financed from the centre. Are these camps to be financed from the centre, or to come under the local education authorities? At any rate, I hope these camps will be put to their maximum use, and not used solely for sickly and ailing children. I hope they will give normal children from the big towns a period of residential education in the countryside. I welcome the Bill, and I am sure that it will pass with the approval of the whole House.

7.14 p.m.

Sir Joseph Nall: These camps or schools have become bigger and better as each speaker has succeeded another. The Minister has introduced a Measure entitled the "Camps Bill"; the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) expanded the information and talked about residential schools; and the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) went one better and talked about adult residential colleges. What are we dealing with? We are dealing with what were intended to be, by the 1939 Act, summer camps. It is quite right that they should be transferred to the Ministry of Education. I gather that some camps are now being usefully used as residential schools, and I would like to ask how many of these camps exist, where they are—I do hot suppose any will be available for Manchester—and how many will be available for use this year.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Edmund Harvey: I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay) in congratulating the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on initiating their work, which is of such importance, by this most fruitful Bill. They will have the good will of the whole


House in taking up work that was un fortunately suspended by the outbreak of war. The Ministry of Education—the Board of Education as it then was—was the first casualty of the war. At the out set of the war it was turned out of its offices, which was symbolic of what happened to education throughout the country. It is, therefore, fitting that the very beginning of the work of peace should be a renewal of this most import ant work and the taking up again of this extremely valuable experiment. I would like to endorse strongly all that was said by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). I believe this Measure will prove to be of the utmost value to the school life of the country. It will give to thousands of children, who are now able to attend only day schools and who often come from homes that are over crowded, and live all their days under the shadow of the smoke of great cities, an opportunity to live a life of fellowship and comradeship in clean and wholesome surroundings with the atmosphere of the countryside around them. Some 30 or 40 years ago I had for a number of years the experience of taking boys from the East End of London to a camp in the country for a week. I know the difference it made to those boys. It was a revelation. I remember their excitement on leaving London—

Mr. Cove: Why not improve their homes?

Mr. Harvey: I am all in favour of improving the homes of the people, but while that is being done the children are there, and we can deal with them now while we are making arrangements for better homes. I have seen children as excited by the sight of a frog as many children in happier homes would be at the sight of a rhinoceros. Those children have never before seen such a strange creature as a frog. I have seen the way in which the wonder of the starry night came upon children who have never been able to see the stars for the smoke. That is an experience we want to hold out to thousands of children. It will mean a change of life to some of these town children. I have known children evacuated during this war to the country from the town, who would certainly have lived as town dwellers all their lives if it had not been for that experience, deciding to become country workers. I. know per-

sonally of several poor lads who are happily working by their own choice on farms to-day and who would not have been doing that if they had not had this experience of living in the country. That is something we must not neglect in thinking of the work that is opening out and will open out as the result of the passing of this Bill. I hope the Minister will feel that he can go ahead. We look to him to open as many of these camp schools as possible in the near future. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to tell us when it is hoped to open the first schools under the Ministry as a result of the passing of the Bill.

Sir J. Nall: They are already reopened.

Mr. Harvey: Yes, but they are to be rearranged under the auspices of the Ministry of Education. I am sure that the good will of all sections of the House will go with the Minister in carrying out this work.

7.20 p.m.

Sir Patrick Hannon: I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education on the introduction of this Bill. It is a very good augury of his career in this House as Minister of Education. I would like also to congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on her first appearance in the House in relation to this Bill. I endorse everything that was said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay). I happen to be the chairman of the Birmingham boys' and girls' union, an institution which has organised these country camps over a long period of years. By the generous assistance of public-spirited citizens in Birmingham, we have been able to take these children from the slums of our cities out into the open air, with all the results which the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) has recited.
But I am rather disappointed at one thing. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who was until recently Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education, spoke about the Pipewood scheme. I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether that scheme has been abandoned and if so, why it has been abandoned. The Pipewood scheme was an experiment which commanded the general respect of everybody and it was a really outstanding success. We brought


within the ambit of that scheme a great number of young people who were given opportunities of surveying country life at its best and of going into the atmosphere of country life. Has the scheme been abandoned? Will it be revived, and will any steps be taken by the Ministry of Education to continue on that same system other experiments? I congratulate both Ministers on the introduction of this Bill. After all, in these days there is taking place a great new organisation of the educational system of the country. To bring the children of the slums into contact with the wholesome fresh air of the country is one of the finest things that the Ministry could undertake. I hope very much that the camp system will develop as a constituent part of our national education.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Silverman: This is a useful little Measure, and I hope everybody will support it, but I must protest against the atmosphere which is being created of revolution in this matter. Listening to the speeches that have been made, any one would think that we were really doing something to change the life, surroundings, environment and destiny of the children of our great cities and slums. We are doing nothing of the kind. All that we are doing in this Bill is to enable a very small proportion of the school children of our land to spend a very short time occasionally in better conditions.

Mr. Lindsay: The hon. Member said there is nothing new about this.

Mr. Silverman: I did not.

Mr. Lindsay: The hon. Member said that too much fuss is being made. Surely he will agree that when it is established that public money can be spent on residential schools for ordinary children, that is a new principle. The more it can be expanded the better.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman probably did not hear the first few sentences of my speech in which I said that this is a useful little Bill, and I hope everybody will support it. I do not say it is a bad Bill. It is a very good thing. What I protest against is the attitude of excitement and enthusiasm with which this very small thing is being surrounded. All that is to happen is that a very few

children are going for a very short time, very occasionally, to enjoy some of the conditions that better-placed children have all their lives, and having been given a slight taste of what life can be for more fortunate children, they are to be pitch-forked back into the cities and slums, under the grey skies which the hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) talked about, just as they were before. I do not want to say a word that will cast any doubt on the advisability of passing this Measure, but let us preserve some sense of proportion and not pretend we are doing more than we are doing. What we are doing is very little.

7.25 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Mrs. Cazalet Keir): I am very glad indeed that the first Bill with which my right hon. Friend and I are connected in this House has received such unanimous approval from all sides. I am particularly glad that it has the blessing of two distinguished predecessors of mine in office. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was worried that experiments would not be tried on a broad enough scale in these camp schools. I think I can reassure him and the House on this matter. A circular—Circular No. 17—was sent out last autumn to local authorities emphasising the importance of experiments. I can assure hon. Members that in paragraph 3 of that circular a very wide latitude is given for experiments in these schools and holiday camps. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Lindsay), who has taken such a very great interest in these camps—and I think I can say that it is largely owing to his enthusiasm that they were started at the time they were—asked whether the camps are to be let by the corporation to local education authorities. As I understand it, the camps will be let to local education authorities, and the arrangements will be agreed upon by my right hon. Friend before they are used. My hon. Friend the Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) wanted to know how many of these camps there are. There are 31 at the present time accommodating 8,000 children.

Mr. Silverman: That is the extent of the social revolution.

Mrs. Keir: I think it is a very good start. We shall proceed from there further as time goes on. My hon. Friend asked also


whether there is a camp near Manchester. The camps are fairly evenly distributed over the country. I will not bother the House now with a list of the places where the 31 camps are situated, but if my hon. Friend would like to see a list I will gladly show it to him, and he will see which ones are situated nearest to Manchester. The hon. Member for the English Universities (Mr. Harvey) asked whether the camps were going to be reopened. I understand they are not going to be reopened, because they are all open. They are not going to have a special opening ceremony because they come under the Ministry of Education. We hope they will go straight on with the good work they have been doing.

Sir J. Nall: Will any of them be available this year?

Mrs. Keir: I do not know when the change-over will take place, but I think it will be as soon as the evacuation scheme is finished. It will probably be a fairly quick process now, and I imagine that as soon as this Bill is passed we shall hope to get the camps back to their proper and original functions as soon as possible. My hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) asked about the Pipe-wood scheme. My right hon. Friend and I have not yet had time to go fully into this scheme. We will do so, and if we may we would like to discuss it with my hon. Friend. I think I have covered the main points that have been raised by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen. I feel absolutely convinced that this Bill is right and necessary and that its results will be for the good of a great many children.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Muff: I only wish to pronounce a benediction. On various occasions I have raised this matter by Question because it has been my privilege to visit a goodly number of these camp corporation schools. The only drawback in many of them was the dual control of the Ministry of Health and the Board of Education, with resultant friction. I am delighted that at last this Bill has been promoted. I believe that these schools have performed a splendid function. There is one in Hertfordshire, where 200 odd boys came from 159 schools from the L.C.C. education authority. They were welded into a happy unit and the atmosphere compares most favourably with many schools with

generations of tradition behind them. I wish simply to pronounce a benediction.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House, for To-morrow.—[Commander Agnew.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

SYRIA AND LEBANON (SITUATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Agnew.]

7.32 p.m.

Major-General Sir Edward Spears: very regret if as the result of short notice I have inconvenienced my right hon. Friend, but I make no apology for raising this question now, owing to the very great gravity of the news that is reaching us from the Levant. I do not know whether the House is in possession of the most recent information. The situation in Syria has greatly worsened. It is very serious indeed. A French airplane has bombed Damascus, the capital, where there is heavy fighting. Other airplanes have bombed Ham a, and Syrian gendarmes shot down one airplane. Syria's President, Shukri Kuwaitly, has appealed to the British Minister now in Damascus and to the United States Minister, for Britain and the United States to intercede immediately in the crisis. The French are using mortars and 75 mm. guns against the Syrians. This is now confirmed in both British and United States quarters in Beirut. Earlier messages said there was great tension everywhere, with the possibility always of a violent explosion. French troops to-day blasted their way into the Syrian Parliament House after blowing up the front gate with a shell from a 75. Later reports said that the Syrian Parliament has now been occupied. Shelling continued until 10 p.m. last night, and then a French airplane strafed the city. Many people have been killed and wounded.
The one satisfactory fact that I know of is that we have a most excellent Minister on the spot, and I am certain that all that can be done locally is being done by him. I feel absolutely certain that


public opinion in this country, and indeed all over the world, will be horrified that these things are being done in the name of the French people, who have so recently been suffering from this sort of thing themselves. I am not willing to believe that the French people would endorse this action if they knew that it had taken place. I beg my right hon. Friend to inform the House what the Government propose to do in these tragic circumstances. It is obviously no use now talking of hoping for negotiations between French, Syrians and Lebanese. What is going to be done to stop this bloodshed amongst people whose independence we have guaranteed? The only action that we have taken that we have been told of is the withdrawal of British troops. I venture to suggest that the events of the last few days show that the announcement of the withdrawal of British troops, far from reducing the tension, has actually increased it.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): May I correct my hon. and gallant Friend? Some troops have gone into training and are going out at the end of their training, that is all.

Sir E. Spears: I am glad to be told that, but an official announcement was put out that British troops were being withdrawn to reduce the tension.

Mr. Eden: No one ever said that.

Sir E. Spears: There was a pronouncement to that effect on the B.B.C. If the information was incorrect, so much the better. What was made quite clear by my right hon. Friend yesterday is that French troops were sent to the Levant against his most urgent advice. The advice of His Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States to the French to take no action that would make things worse has not been heeded either. It seems to me that we cannot possibly escape our responsibility in this matter. It is not only a question of our guarantee of the independence of Syria and the Lebanon. It is not only a question of our pledged word. We have actual responsibilities in the area. The harbour of Beirut, where these French troops landed, is under British Naval Command, and the British Commander-in-Chief in the Middle East is responsible for all troops in the area. We have the means

to make those powers effective. I am certain that the Government will have the full support of the whole House, and of opinion everywhere, in taking very strong steps to bring home to the French our insistence that this bloodshed must cease and that they must respect the independence of the two Republics, which they and we have guaranteed.

7.40 p.m.

Mr. Astor: It is indeed tragic that within the space of one Parliament we should be discussing on the Adjournment two of our Allies, two members of the United Nations, engaged in this very tragic war. All of us who speak must take great care, remembering that both sides are our friends, and that both sides have the most acute susceptibilities in the matter. We know the romantic and historical trend of the French character and how much it is associated with Syria. When the previous crisis arose people tried, not in the House but elsewhere, to cast aspersions on my hon. and gallant Frined the Member for Carlisle (Sir E. Spears), who was then British Minister on the spot, saying that the trouble was due to his conduct. The fact that this far worse incident has come after he has been back for many months, shows how ill founded were those accusations. We cannot divest ourselves of interest in this. Our interest in the Arab world is predominant and vital. There is a danger that this trouble may spread to Transjordania and Palestine and the safety of these regions is vital for our interests and for the prosecution of the Far Eastern war, so that our troops and ships may pass unimpeded.
France equally in the last analysis must rely on the friendship of the Arab world in view of her communications with the Far East, and must have good relations with England and Egypt. The oil which comes through Tripoli depends not on. the mere holding of Tripoli, but on its sources in Iraq, in the neighbouring Arab country. Therefore we must try to get both sides to a settlement, because we cannot fail to intervene if this thing goes on further. I suggest that the way to do it is to try to get a settlement between England and France. This is more than a local affair. We want to get an Anglo-French alliance absolutely close, firm and watertight, which looks after the strategic interests of both, with France not confined in the tiny little port of Beirut. She ought to share


with us the possibilities of Alexandria, Gibraltar and Malta, we sharing with her Toulon and Dakar. That is the scale on which we must go, as in 1906, when English and French interests in the Mediterranean were disentangled, the French taking the Western end and England the Eastern, when we were able to form that entente cordiale which took us through the stress and strain of the German crisis. That is the object to aim at. France being very susceptible, and some elements incurably suspicious of us, I hope we shall try to get the new American President to take a prominent part in the alleviation of this trouble, because what does San Francisco mean, and what does the Atlantic Charter mean, if this dispute is to continue in this way?
I should like to say a word of sympathy towards the people in this region. I spent a very happy year there, and I can testify to the friendship of the Syrians and Lebanese to the cause of the United Nations. They have helped us and have been very good friends to us, and we know how Moslems all over the world must feel when one of their most sacred cities, Damascus, is subjected to bombardment twice within 25 years. We can assure the Foreign Secretary that anything that he may do will have the support of all Members of the House.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Stokes: I could not possibly endorse the views expressed by the last speaker in his dissertation on power politics, in which he talked about the division of power between ourselves and the French. I want, however, to say some words in support of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Carlisle (Sir E. Spears), who brought up this subject. It is a most deplorable story that he has had to tell us, though I agree that it is without complete substantiation. We have only had it ever the wireless and in the Press. I would like to endorse what the hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Astor) has said about the work that the hon. and gallant Member has done in that area. I am not a political friend of his—God forbid that I should be—but it is perfectly true that, if you take the ordinary inhabitant, the ordinary man ill that part of the world, he will tell you that the job of work done by the hon. and gallant Gentleman has been greatly to the benefit of the peoples living in those parts.
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary protested a moment ago when the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that British troops had been withdrawn from the area just recently. I quite appreciate the Foreign Secretary's point that they were there for training purposes and were taken away. It is important that people should realise that, but it has not been made clear to the local inhabitants. When they see troop movements, they think it is for political reasons, and when they see training movements taking place at the same time as political movements, they can easily take them in the wrong light. I am only too glad to emphasise that that movement of troops was purely a training movement and nothing else, and that it does not mean to convey to the French Government that we are in any way relinquishing our views as to what is proper to be done in the Lebanon and Syria.
I do not think that people in this House really understand the history and background of what has been going on in the Lebanon and Syria, and I would like to put on record again what the declarations have been in the past few years. I have turned up what are familiar to the Foreign Secretary, namely, two important declarations by General Catroux. The first was given on 8th June, 1941, when, speaking on behalf of General de Gaulle, he said:
I come to put an end to the mandatory régime and to proclaim you free and independent. You will be henceforward sovereign and independent peoples able either to' form yourselves into separate states or to unite into a single state. Your independent and sovereign status will be guaranteed by a treaty in which our mutual relations will be defined…
Not many months later, on 26th November, 1941, at Beirut, in the name of Free France, General Catroux read a declaration declaring the Lebanon an independent sovereign State with power to appoint diplomatic representatives and to form her own military forces. That was admirably elucidated and endorsed by His Majesty's Government in Command Paper 6600, published recently, in which they referred to a statement by His Majesty's Ambassador in Cairo, made on behalf of His Majesty's Government, on 8th June, 1941:
General Catroux, on behalf of General de Gaulle, Chief of the Free French, has issued a declaration to the inhabitants of Syria and the Lebanon before advancing with the object of expelling the Germans. In this he declares


the liberty and independence of Syria and the Lebanon. He undertakes to negotiate a treaty to ensure these objects.
With that background, what is puzzling everybody in the Middle East and in this House who knows anything about the subject, is why these countries are not being treated in the way that was guaranteed to them at a time when it was convenient to us to seek their particular and immediate aid and co-operation.
What is the first duty of a mandatory Power? It is to clear out as soon as possible. The mandatory Power is not expected to take political, military or economic advantage to itself. I know that the history of events has shown that it does, but the views of the victims of mandatory Powers do not agree with the views which are held by so many of the people who exercise mandates. The first object should be to train the people to look after themselves. Nobody denies that these countries are capable of administering their own affairs. There is no doubt that they can. You can talk to persons experienced in the Middle East, and nobody will raise a voice and say that these people are not capable of controlling themselves. The position becomes particularly exacerbated when one considers that the French people were the people who invited the Germans in at the worst possible moment, and every Arab knows that. There is no use pretending that it did not happen. His Majesty's Government always seem to me, on these subjects, to be living in a fool's paradise, as if the people in those countries do not know what has happened and the people of this country do not care. The people do not care in this country because they are never properly told by the Press.
By the way in which the French are behaving one would almost think- that they had won the war, and they should be told straight "where they get off." Let us reflect back to what happened in November, 1943. The hon. and gallant Member for Carlisle was at Beirut at the time when the French troops swept down and swooped up the whole Government and even invaded the bedroom of the Prime Minister and pulled him out of bed when he was in bed with his wife. That is a thing these people will never forget; it offends everything they stand for and all that is most sacred to them. Then there were tanks killing people right

and left. The French will never live down the evil reputation they have got there, and the sooner that is realised by everybody, the better for all of us. I well appreciate what the French are seeking, or say they are; it is some strategic advantage. Let us recognise that if it is to be a strategic advantage, it shall not be one that goes further than anything that is allowed to us in a stategic capacity in Iraq. It is possible that we might persuade these people to agree that the French should have some aerodrome out on the desert, but that is the utmost, and I do not believe it is impossible of achievement. In the present state of affairs it would not be agreed to by anybody. They will never agree to the military occupation of their country.
The fear of these people in the Middle East is that the small countries are going to be betrayed again. They are afraid that they are to be used as pawns in the game, the old, old game of power politics as envisaged by the hon. Member for East Fulham. I say to His Majesty's Government that there will be serious trouble all over the Middle East if what is happening can in any way be taken to be regarded as a likely betrayal of the small nations. Let me remind the Foreign Secretary that there has never been a satisfactory explanation of what I call the Paris negotiations. There is deep suspicion in the mind and heart of every politician in the Middle East about those discussions which took place in Paris between the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, General de Gaulle and the British Ambassador in October or November last year. There has been no clear declaration of what took place. I would aver that the disasters that are now taking place are a direct result of the complete indecision as to policy following on that meeting.

7.55 P.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Eden): I am grateful to the House for letting me intervene now, because the Cabinet was discussing this matter when it was raised in the House. I have left the discussion and I am anxious to get back. I must take the strongest issue with the last sentence uttered by the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes). He seems to imply that all that has happened in Syria is due to some discussions


which took place between the Prime Minister and myself and General de Gaulle in Paris. There is not a vestige of justification for that. On the contrary, our policy in this matter has been made plain publicly over and over again, and we stand by those public declarations. We have not swerved one inch or one iota from them, nor shall we do so. I am really sorry that the hon. Gentleman impaired his speech with that final insinuation. Our effort in this business, particularly in these last months, and, let me add, the effort of our Minister out there, has been entirely concentrated, as all those who were in the War Cabinet will know very well, to try to reduce the temperature and get conversations opened up that would lead to a final settlement. Before these last events the omens looked better than they had been for a long time past. Although I am ready to take responsibility for anything that I have done, I utterly repudiate the view that anything we have said to the French is responsible for what is going on now. The task of the peacemaker is often a thankless one, and it is so in this case. But, in spite of the hon. Gentleman's charges, we shall persevere.
Let me deal with one or two of the points that have been raised. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carlisle (Sir E. Spears) referred to the movement of troops, and I think that there has been a little confusion here. What has happened is this. There are certain British troops who have been stationed in Syria for some time, but, in addition to them, a certain number of troops have been in the habit, a small number at a time, of going into Syria for training purposes and coming out again. That has been a routine movement. That is what has happened in this case, and I am glad that it has been emphasised that it was nothing more than that, a routine movement. Where confusion has arisen, perhaps, is because we made it quite plain, and I thought it desirable that we should make it plain, to our French Allies and others, because of rumours that got about, that we were perfectly prepared to withdraw all our troops from Syria and the Lebanon as soon as an agreement was reached between the French and the States, and as soon as the French movement of troops had in consequence taken place. I wish to make that plain, because I do not want anybody to think that

in any circumstances we want to supplant what has hitherto been the French position in the Lebanon, and to make that clear beyond peradventure, I emphasise this about our troops going.
Now a few words about the situation as we see it. Unhappily the news which has reached us in the last few hours on the situation in Syria shows that the position has greatly deteriorated. Reports indicate that there has been considerable shelling of Damascus by French artillery with serious loss of life and destruction of property. Serious disorders have also occurred for some days past at Aleppo, Homs and Hama, so I know I speak for all the House when I say that His Majesty's Government deplore these incidents. I told the House yesterday that for months past we have been trying to promote a final settlement of the situation, the dangers of which were apparent to us all. As a result of these efforts there had been a certain improvement and, as I said just now, the chances of a negotiation between the French and the Levant States were by no means unhopeful, but in the last few days, for the reasons which I explained to the House yesterday, all this improvement has been entirely swept away and, as a result, when this last news reached us, we were engaged in taking a fresh diplomatic initiative to meet the grave events. Now the position has deteriorated still further, and the Cabinet is now considering the new situation created by these events and the action which may as a consequence be required. I know the House will understand that I cannot in these conditions say more at the present time, but I will keep the House fully informed as early as I can of the decisions taken. I would add that, as I know the House would wish, we are now in constant communication with the United States Government on the situation.

8.3 p.m.

M. Tinker: I am sure all hon. Members on this side of the House at any rate are in agreement with what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. It is a terrible state of affairs. We have just concluded one great war and now there are signs of trouble again from a country whom we have saved in effect. I hope the French people will have some regard for what we have done on their behalf and


will listen to an appeal from this country to try to settle this matter wisely and firmly.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Lipson: I would like to associate myself with what has been said by my hon. Friend. We all agree that the situation which has arisen in Syria is tragic, and everyone is anxious that nothing should be said here which would be likely to make the situation more tragic. I hope that any action which will be taken in this matter will not be taken by this country alone. Just now we are trying to create at San Francisco a means by which international difficulties may be solved not by action by any one Power alone but by united action, and I hope so far as is possible we shall try to ensure, even if the San Francisco proposals are not yet implemented so far as its constitution is concerned, that we do follow the line along which we hope San Francisco will lead us. For that reason I would deprecate that there should be any action by this country alone calculated to tell France "where she gets off" or to try to suggest that she has played an unworthy part in this war or to insist that France should do this or that. We have to bear in mind that our best interest now is to ensure the future peace of the world, and if we are to do that we want a friendly France as well as a friendly Syria and other countries.
We must make full allowance for France. She has passed through extremely difficult times during the war and it may be that, having contributed to her own liberation and having just recovered some of her strength after a period of German domination, she may be throwing her weight about a bit. Let us have regard for her sensitiveness at this juncture and not do anything that is likely to add fuel to an already troubled fire; and in whatever action we take let it not be action taken by ourselves alone, but in combination with the other united Powers, with whom we have fought this war.

8.7 p.m.

Major McCallum: In view of the very grave news imparted to the House by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, it behoves every hon. Member who speaks in this Debate to be very careful in what he says.

Mr. George Griffiths: He should not speak at all.

Major McCallum: I intervene only because I believe I am the Member in this House who has served longest in Syria it self. While I was serving in Syria I had the privilege of serving with the French Army and I speak with some slight knowledge of the circumstances. I would like to follow a little on what my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) developed in his speech—this question of background. He did not, however, go far enough back in studying the background. The troubles to-day have not started in this war. They started in the last war, and those who care to study the history of that part of the world will realise that the French nation has a special position in those countries known as the Levant. It does not date back to the last war, or to the beginning of this century. It dates back two centuries. Even when Syria and the Levant were part of the Turkish Empire, French culture was the culture which was developed throughout those countries. After the last war when Syria and Lebanon were placed under the mandate of France as a result of the Peace Conference, the desire of the peoples of those countries for French culture continued. There was no question of their not wishing to retain their connection with France.

Sir E. Spears: My hon. and gallant Friend is perhaps doing the United States an injustice. The university in Beirut has perhaps played a greater part in the educational life and public enlightenment in the Levant than any other institution, and when my hon. and gallant Friend says the country was in favour of the French mandate, he is mistaken because the Levant wanted the United States mandate to be No. 1, ourselves No. 2, and the French were absolutely nowhere.

Major McCallum: It is not quite as simple as that. French culture and influence go back long before there was any American university in Beirut. I know the university very well, and I have had the greatest admiration for the work done by it but let me ask my hon. and gallant Friend one question. Where did the professional classes, the engineers and the lawyers of Syria and the Lebanon go for their education? Not to the American university in Beirut. They went to Paris. French culture is


engrained in those people. The tragic events which have happened since the last war are part and parcel of the settlement—unsettlement it was—arrived at after the last war.

Mr. Stokes: Is the hon. and gallant Member suggesting that because these people have had the advantage of a certain French educational background, they have surrendered their sovereignty? Does he mean to suggest that the mandate given to France after the last war is abrogated by the fact that French influence was there before the mandate was granted?

Major McCallum: I mean to say that when we are judging the terrible events which we are discussing to-night, we have to do what my hon. Friend suggested earlier on, look at the background of all this. Let me take my hon. Friend back a little, to the period between the wars. I can remember the time when General Gouraud and General Weygand were High Commissioners in Syria and an attempt was made to murder General Gouraud. The assassins murdered the people in his car and they escaped over the Transjordan frontier, into country which is still under British mandate. The French authorities, through Paris and London, asked us for the extradition of those assassins so as to bring them to trial. What did we reply? We replied through our High Commissioner in Jerusalem that the assassins were political offenders, and not offenders against the criminal law. That stuck in the French mind and has stuck there ever since.
There was a development of that situation later on when we had our own troubles in Palestine, even after the beginning of this war. Where was the murder campaign in Palestine started? Where were the headquarters of the murderers who were operating in Palestine? In Damascus, sheltered there by the French. Tit-for-tat; because we would not help them with the murderers of their High Commissioner, they were not going to. help us to put a stop to the assassinations which were going on in Palestine. The result was that the quarrel between our, two nations caused such a state of friction at the frontiers between Palestine and the Transjordan, that it goes on to this day between French and British junior officers.

I am convinced that if the same friction did not exist at the higher levels, and if the working together at those levels were more cordial, in the instructions issued from both sides, we should not have this feeling between the French people and ourselves. They feel frustrated by us. There is no doubt about that.

Sir E. Spears: I apologise for interrupting my hon. and gallant Friend again, but is he saying that because those who attempted to assassinate General Gouraud escaped over the borders in Palestine that justifies the bombardment of Damascus to-day?

Major McCallum: No, I do not, but I say that we must look at the background of the events of to-day. I can see that the French have a special position in Syria and the Lebanon. I should be the first to say that the greatest mistake in the world has been made by the French in introducing Senegalese troops into Syria. We advised them against it. They were so advised by the British Government in years gone by. We asked them not to bring in these Senegalese black troops to Syria for the purposes of occupation. That was a very great mistake. I am not seeking to condone the action that has taken place when I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back and to realise the background which shows how all these troubles originally started.

8.16 p.m.

Commander King-Hall: Perhaps I might bring the House back now to the very serious statement which we have just heard from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It is so serious that I think one should concentrate on it rather than endeavour at the present time to go into the details of the pros and cons of how the situation has arisen. When I heard the Foreign Secretary's statement, I am bound to say I realised that it might not be the only serious statement we shall hear from him about a situation outside these islands in the next six months. One consoling feature was the reception the House gave to the statement, and the unanimity exhibited in regard to the policy of His Majesty's Government at this moment in doing everything within their power to bring about an amelioration in the really shocking, terrible and scandalous state of affairs out there in the Levant.
I have one practical suggestion to make which may be of some value to the Government. On the two or three occasions recently when I have been in France I have been immensely interested in the enormous prestige enjoyed by this House of Commons on the Continent, in Western Europe generally and in France in particular. Perhaps we are sometimes inclined to forget that we are the only Parliament that has continued in active operation throughout these five years, and has stood erect, remaining a full Parliament. Our prestige is so great that I cannot help thinking that if the Government took pains—and it would require special attention—to see that public opinion in France is made aware of the unanimity that exists in this House in support of the Government at this time, on this matter, that information might be of service in the attempts which the Government are making. I have said that the matter will need a little special attention. With the minute size of the papers in France at the present time and the difficulties on the technical side, everything that happens in this House of Commons is not automatically reported in the French Press, but I believe that, the French public will be very interested to know what this House thinks and how we reflect opinion. The fact that we are unanimous in all parts of the House should be made known to the French Government and the French people through the various information services that are in operation.

8.18 p.m.

Captain, Longhurst: I have some acquaintance with conditions in the ring of Arab States, of which Syria is one, and perhaps it might be of service to the House if I conveyed one or two impressions which I recently gained. One was that there never was a time when there was greater potential good will among the Arab States towards ourselves. The second is that although we read a great deal about Arab unity, the Arab League and so on, the cynics, including many Arabs, will tell you that they will believe in Arab unity when they see it. Yet, on two points all are agreed and all Arab countries are unanimous. One is on Palestine, which does not concern us to-day, and the other is on Syria and the Lebanon. The Arabs feel, rightly or wrongly—and it is no business of mine to say which—that we

let them down in that area after the last war. I do not know whether that is right, but that is what they feel. They are looking with the greatest caution for parallels in the present situation—another great war, the same countries involved.
What are we going to do this time? I think it is fair and proper to say that the question of Syria is the second of the only two points upon which the whole Arab world is in fact united. When I was in Syria I put one standard question to everybody to whom I talked there. I said "Do you think the Arab peoples here and in the Lebanon are really in earnest? Otherwise do you think that if they are not given satisfaction in the matter of their independence, etc., they will sulk for a while, perhaps create a few disturbances, and then settle down and say 'We did our best; now we go on as we were before'?" The answer was unanimous. Everybody said "Yes, they are indeed earnest and they really mean it." Again, I do not presume to say whether they are right or wrong. I merely report that that is, for better or worse, their attitude. That is in contradistinction to what the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) has suggested in saying that the professional classes in Syria and the Lebanon habitually went to Paris for their education, and that therefore it was their cultural background That may be so, but I am only acting as a faithful reporter when I say that they will not stand for their independence being menaced.
I am not for the moment suggesting that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs should come out with 100 per cent. Arab, 100 per cent. anti-French, policy. Of course I am not suggesting that. My mother-in-law was French, and I nearly won a golf championship in France, and I must be acquitted of any such ridiculous intention. But I ask him to make some sort of statement which will convey the impression to any reasonable Arab that there is no chance of our going back on out guarantee of the independence of Syria and the Lebanon—some statement which will convince the Arab world.

8.23 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Mander: I am sorry that I was not in the House when the Secretary of State made


his statement, but I understand the gravity of the nature of what he said. I rise merely to associate myself with what has been said by other Members in support of the Government in this very grave issue. It would be easy to make an inflammatory speech and say things which would cause excitement, but I do not think that would be in the least helpful. It is much better for us to place our confidence in the Foreign Secretary, knowing the admirable way in which he has been conducting the foreign affairs of this country, as I think, and doing his best in that area. It seems to me that the French have behaved in a lamentable manner. Indeed their conduct all through these last few years in the Near East has been rather strange and unsatisfactory, to put it in a most mild way. I feel that we cannot possibly get away from our responsibility which we took at the time when with General Catroux we guaranteed the independence of the Arab States—Syria and the Lebanon. How that can be carried out in the most satisfactory manner we must leave in the hands of the Foreign Secretary and the Government. I only intervene to say that I have confidence in the way that they will approach this matter. I believe that the whole House is behind them. I hope they will be able by reason, persuasion, and good will to arrive at a settlement which will give satisfaction to our Arab friends out there, and keep the French our good Allies and friends too.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: On one point I did not quite follow the logic of my hon. and gallant Friend and constituent below me: he seemed to be using mothers-in-law with a very unusual sense of values. I would wish to begin by assuring the House that I am the most Francophil man in it. Indeed I hope I am, because I think I am as Francophil as any Englishman could be, without disloyalty: to his own country. I do regret one or two suggestions that have been made about the necessity of reminding France that France has not perhaps behaved quite so well as we have in some years, or in some parts of the globe. I do not really think that what happened in1940, or what has happened in other years, is a matter of which we need remind anyone: our glories are certain enough. As for whatever small regrets other nations may have, I think we may be sure they are keenly enough

conscious on their own, and to make that consciousness keener or more public, can only make negotiations more difficult.
I think there is—I hope I am right in thinking so but I am not at all sure, because on this sort of subject it is very easy to talk nonsense or harmful sense—one other thing which may fairly and properly be said. It is this. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) said that the first duty of a mandatory was to clear out. I do not think that can really be right in logic. We all owe God a death, but it is not the first of our duties to pay that debt, otherwise there would not be time to do anything else. It cannot be the first duty of a mandatory to clear out: I think the first duty must be to protect and I think that we must get it into our heads that whereas there were mandatory Powers set up by the League of Nations, about which it is very dubious whether they owed their authority to the conquest which preceded the Treaty of Versailles, or to that Treaty, there are also mandatories in a higher and, I think, more real sense, that is to say, that where a State has avowed and obvious power, there it has a duty to protect.
No one doubts, in any of the Arab States, no one doubts in Russia, I suppose that no one in any part of the world who looks at the Eastern Mediterranean doubts, that we have the power there. When first a very small French ship comes everybody says, "It must be by permission of the British, otherwise how did it get here?" just as much as we should say, if a Belgian steamer came down the Volga, "It must have been by permission of the Russians." When a bigger ship comes everybody assumes it must be by permission of the British. When a third and still bigger ship comes, everybody says, "It must be by permission of the British." I ask the House to remember that this places upon us a duty which we cannot escape. It is no use talking about power politics as if that were an accusation. It is a mere tautology: politics are the application of power in the relations between men and societies, and where we are seen to have the power, the responsibility will be put upon us for what ensues. Profoundly as we may feel, as I certainly feel, affection for France and the French people, keenly as we may be aware—and by heaven none of us can


now doubt—that we cannot ever again sleep in our beds unless a strong France is on our side, in these days of V1, V2 and all the rest—keenly as we may be aware of these things, anxious as we must be to have the fullest agreement with France, in my judgment we cannot shuffle off responsibility in the eyes of the world for the preservation of peace and order for the Arab States, including these States.

8.30 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord Dunglass): I have often made speeches and said nothing very much in them, but I have never felt so confident as I am now that hon. Members on every side of the House will wish me to add nothing to the very carefully-considered statement of my right hon. Friend. That seems to me certainly, in these circumstances, to be the path of wisdom. I share the hope of the hon. and

gallant Member for Ormskirk (Commander King-Hall) and the sentiments expressed by the Senior Burgess the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pick-thorn) that the unanimity of this House in this short Debate will impress upon the French people the gravity of this situation as we see it. My right hon. Friend gave two assurances. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) raised one of them. He said, "Do not let us proceed alone." My right hon. Friend made it clear that we are in this matter in contact with the United States, and my right hon. Friend also promised that he would come back to this House and make a statement as soon as he could. With the permission of hon. Members, I will, therefore, leave it at that.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-Eight Minutes to Nine o'Clock.